-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 01 May 2004 06:32, Matthew Miller wrote: > Ouch. That seem like a recipe for disaster. What if RH would, out of the > blue, decide to actually release an official update to something we > thought was completely out of maintenance? Not likely to happen with > 7.x, but maybe one or two RHL9 updates will still trickle out. I think > Seth's choice of not touching the base RH package's version number is a > better policy choice -- largely _because_ there is no upstream constant > method. Instead, we should leave whatever they do alone, and add after > that. Given that the package name has a 0.7x in it already, it's highly unlikely they would bump a 0.7x package into RHL9 space. The RHL9 package most likely has 0.9 in the package name, and is thus guaranteed to be newer than our 0.7x packages, no matter what our build level. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.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) iD8DBQFAk87t4v2HLvE71NURAlqeAJ9tNKB1lRCu6c/XiR/iFjfS4bBWvgCgqrsS 1zSQH9Gj/bwtiTmDRj5/zcc= =2qLs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
