X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:03:30 +0100 (MET)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Which 2.12.1 source and binary test zip file
In-Reply-To:	<00bd01c16f5b$ae341340$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10111171757510.27163-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Andrew Cottrell wrote:

> I have produced a which 2.12.1 source and binary release that is based on
> the GNU 2.12 plus the which.c changes for DJGPP and the patch that you sent
> out in September. I called it 2.12.1 as it is not the GNU 2.12 release, but
> a modified verison for DJGPP, is this okay?

I don't think it is. GNU/FSF seem to like to keep all dot-separated
version numbers reserved for themselves. I.e. if you call your package
2.13.1 now, there's the off chance that the GNU which maintainer may want
to call a differently modified version 2.13.1, too, tomorrow or next year.
This would call a collision between your version and an "official" version
number, which we had better avoid if possible.

OTOH, unless you've made changes beyond simple adaption of the program to
the DJGPP environment (e.g. the usual backslash quirk fixes and the like),
I don't think there would be a problem just calling it 2.13.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -