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

Re: Kind request: Set release version to "10"

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:11:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

> > [senseless examples skipped]


> Exactly what are you trying to prove? "My repo is more consistent than
> your repo"?

I don't have a repository.

> Didn't I mention that there was evolution in the
> versioning scheme, _parts of which_ were discussed with fedora.us?
> (and the examples are crap also,

Wrong choice of words here for my taste. Aggression causes me to block

> i.e. you are ranting about mozilla's
> versioning scheme, which is a verbatim copy of rawhide ...)

mplayer isn't.

> While the discussion with fedora.us back in March/April did create
> some first specifications, others and I broke with fedora.us due to
> the increased non-tolerance against other 3rd party repos.
> So the maintainers of the old repos stepped back and kept and evolved
> their own versioning schemes (This is a bit oversimplified, in reality
> there were and are coordination efforts to keep the repos compatible).

How is your current versioning scheme defined?

> > Packages in Fedora Core 1 will be newer than any packages in Red Hat
> > Linux. Only a few cases (e.g. comps, maybe comps-extras,
> > redhat-release => fedora-release) need special treatment (probably an
> > increased epoch).
> You trimmed (and maybe didn't read) the following from my previous
> reply: "That's why I changed the Subject on the main thread to contain
> "Fedora Legacy". If one doesn't care about past releases, you don't
> see the problem."

I refused to quote it. Does Fedora Legacy cover "old releases of
Fedora Core" (quote from fedora.redhat.com) or also old release from
Red Hat Linux or also pre-Fedora 3rd party repositories?

- -- 
Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


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