On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:23PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I'm not the one to choose either scheme - but imho both schemes
> could profit from an additional u-level.
I proposed in the past partial patch-level, like p1.1, I don't think
that another ``u'' suffix is needed. Devs could just use partials and
when port is ready bump it to intiger value.
Just to be completely clear, here is example how patch-level could change
for a particular port:
pkgname-12.34p5.tgz
pkgname-12.34p5.354.tgz
pkgname-12.34p6.tgz
--
best regards
q#
