-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 08 February 2004 23:34, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > and the .0 could be incremented for each iteration of an update > undergoing QA/testing. This would also help reduce "release > inflation" that might interfere with a future FC package's release > number that is as yet unknown (unless Red Hat will be checking > FedoraLegacy before coming up with new release numbers for future FC > packages?). There is work being done inside Red Hat to start using a package naming scheme that won't conflict with folks like us. Basically it sounds like they'll start using a distro release tag. > Come to think of it, why can't we just use the incremented minor > number always with the same major release number as the existing RH/FC > package? Even if the existing release number has multiple components > separated with periods, can we not just add a .1 after all that and > keep incrementing that number for each legacy release? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. Regardless, I've added a new section to the doc, called Build Updates. Please review. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAJ7Mb4v2HLvE71NURAkXpAJ9HzBNs3bCAX4kkxatVA970hxwp5QCfbpio wGIyNFcAsaj3ioAUTglXBek= =ZLAM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
