On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:11:18 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > Problem is a lot of people ignore those warnings. That's because most > > of the time the warning is meaningless in that they warn people of a > > config file change that could cause problems and in 99.9% of the time > > it doesn't. It leads to the "yeah, yeah, whatever" syndrome. > Doesn't mean the warning couldn't/shouldn't be given.
Which is not what I said. What I am pointing out is that the warning
*isn't enough* for a base package that breaks configuration compatibility.
> > Also since Exim is a base package a little more care has to go into it.
> Not so. "exim" is a base package. That doesn't mean that "exim4" would
> have to be a base package. It would just be another _optional_ package.
Which I addressed by asking "Do we really need to start putting
the version number in the package name now, IE exim4?" which you deleted. We
have a version number field for a reason yet more and more we now have the
version number in the name which is getting annoying. Do we really need exim
and exim4? Shouldn't it have been exim3 right away? Should we go through and
add major version numbers to every package?
> It need not be structured as an upgrade of a base package.
I think it would be mistake if it weren't. Not without some change that
makes it clear when we put version numbers in the name and when/if we don't
*or* that something gets into place on the version number field to address
this so we don't have to remember to add the major on this package but not on
that package.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
| -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
