| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:45:46PM +1100, Andrew Dalgleish wrote: >Just a thought... >I like the way debian number their packages with the "upstream" version >as the most significant, and the "debian" version as the least >significant. >This makes it easy to identify which upstream version you are using, and >also allows for more than one package version. That's not a bad idea. Doesn't Red Hat do something similar? I"m embarassed to admit that I don't know. >One question: >For packages like the GNU fileutils etc, will the source tarballs >include the original source + patches (similar to debian) or pre-patched >source files? > >I prefer the former because: >Pros: >* A stand-alone patch helps document what had to change to make the >package work under cygwin. >* A patch for version X will often (?) work for version X+1. >* One package maintainer computes the diff vs many package downloaders >doing it, perhaps incorrectly. > >Cons: >* Harder to build. (And hence more noise on the list) >* More work for the package maintainer. (Hmm, not good... :-) Hmm. I like the idea but the "Cons" scare me. cgf
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |