On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:01:35PM +1000, Matthew Melvin wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 at 5:04am (-0500), Vincent Cojot wrote:
[...]
> I can't speak to the general issue except to say that the basic scheme being
> that 'bigger' is 'newer'. But in this particular case there was already a
> sendmail-8.11.6-1.6.x (earlier release of the same alert I beleive) so the
> next one had to be sendmail-8.11.6-1.6.y and I think that illistrates the
> problem...
Hm... I'd have expected "sendmail-8.11.6-2.6.x" instead, but maybe that's
just me...
Thomas
--
NEWSFLASH: http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html
Thomas Ribbrock | http://www.ribbrock.org | ICQ#: 15839919
"You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
