[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Reverting package to a previous



>>>>> "VS" == Ville Skytt <Ville> writes:

VS> There's also a precedent of naming stuff like this as compat-foo,
VS> and I think it's generally preferred over version based suffixing
VS> nowadays, at least when there's no intention to keep permanently
VS> shipping many versions of something.

Naming here seems to be ill-defined; we have both
compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-55.fc5.i386 (compat-name-ver-ver-release}
and compat-db-4.2.52-4.i386 (compat-name-ver-release).  I guess
compat-erlang-R10B-1.fc5.i386 makes the most sense.

VS> Yet another case to the pile of recent incompatible upgrades :(

Yes, this is OK in rawhide but scary in the release branches.

 - J<


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]