Re: Libraries getting out of phase with other distributions
This is strange; there seems to be disagreement about what version
the upstream source is!
On Wed, Jan 21, 1998 at 02:02:00PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Erik Troan <ewt@redhat.com>
> On 13 Jan 1998, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
> > Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu> writes:
> > > the two distributions. Guy goes with the 2.1 number because that's
> > > the number the authors give it and it is upwardly compatible with the
> > > 2.0 release. The RedHat maintainer claims it is a major revision
> > > relative to 2.0 so should have a new major number.
> >
> > Well to be completely precise, Eric Troan (RedHat)'s point is that the
> > *original* maintainer (Chet Ramey) has set the shared object number at
> > 3.0, and that that should be respected. To wit:
Douglas said that the authors gave it version 2.1, while Eric
claims the "*original* maintainer" (is this different to Douglas's
authors?) gave it 3.0.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: