Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3DFB4DD0.335457CC@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:27:12 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [Fwd: ANNOUNCE: Release 4 of DJGPP port of fileutils 4.1]
References:	<3DF7C2BD DOT 31601BA7 AT yahoo DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1021212075923 DOT 15584F-100000 AT is> <20021212135449 DOT GA4441 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <3DF9D928 DOT E78ECF4D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <20021213135345 DOT GA19578 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

JT Williams wrote:
> 
> -: Thanks for the list! If there are no objections, I'll update the mini-FAQ
> -: at the weekend with revision numbers for the other packages.
> 
> Don't take the list I posted too seriously; I made up some of those
> release numbers only to help me keep track of package releases.  In
> general, neither a package release (r[1-9]) nor a package revision
> (r[0-9]) is indicated in the *.ver file for the package (although
> doing so might be a good idea).

It looks like automake 1.5 is the only package on that list (apart from the
fileutils packages) that has 'release n' in its .ver or .dsm file. There
doesn't seem much point listing the release number in the mini-FAQ, if there's
no way of telling which release you currently have.

BTW I was thinking of adding autoconf and automake to the mini-FAQ. Any
objections?

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -