On 4 Apr 2006, Miles Bader stated:
> Gnus 5.11 is the "Gnus in the Emacs tree" (i.e., it already exists).
> No Gnus will be Gnus 5.12 when it's released.
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OK. So should I just give Gnus a version consistent with
>> internal versions, and call it Gnus 5.11.004 ?
> That might work in practice (because no released Gnus will ever have
> version 5.11.x), but conceptually it seems wrong because No Gnus
> isn't "release 004 of Gnus 5.11", it's "Gnus _after_ 5.11". So how
> about something like "5.11+0.3" (where 0.3 is the No Gnus version)?
> So it seems like the proper version number for No Gnus in debian
> might be something like "5.11+0.3" or something -- that will never
> conflict with Gnus releases because no Gnus release will ever use
> 5.11.
Well, to me, and to dpkg, 5.11.004 also conveys the meaning
that this is a Gnus _after_ 5.11, and that is true conceptually, if
not temporally. After all, No Gnus uses that version number
internally, so this is not much of a stretch.
Does changing a "." to a "+" make much difference? If not, I
would prefer to stick with the upstream internal numbering; less to
explain.
manoj
--
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
