Re: lynx-dev bug report

[T.E.Dickey]

> 
> "T.E.Dickey" <address@hidden> wrote: 
> >perhaps it's 2.8.2dev.11 (which adds a chunk of diskspace for the i18n 
> >code using gettext).  We're still discussing what fraction of that can 
> >be discarded (e.g., the libintl.a source code), but that's likely where 
> >it came from.  It would be nice if the rpm contained enough information 
> >to relate it to the development version, but I've found the changelogs 
> >to be rather sketchy (the associated patches are really the only useful 
> >clues, but not all rpm's contain them, forcing me to do diff's). 
>  
> 2.8.2dev.11? Why include devel versions in a productive distribution? AFAIK, 
> RedHat never ships with devel stuff (they're using Slang 1.2.2...). In the 

yes they do:  the ncurses they're shipping with 6.0 is a development
snapshot from 2 weeks before the code went into beta (we discussed it &
even though they had time - a week or more, the person at Redhat refused to
reconsider - so it's neither 4.2 nor 5.0 - but they label it as "4.2").

-- it's been in beta for some months (but that's not a technical issue ;-)

> past I discussed about it in the Rawhide Mailing List because they released 
> the util-linux package with the version like this: 
> util-linux-2.9-XX.src.rpm 
> Anyone knows that util-linux 2.9 is shipped with a letter after the numbers. 
> 2.9o, 2.9v... Using 2.9-XX you never know what version you are getting. 
>  
> Maybe the Lynx developers (you?) should contact the RedHat team for this. I 
> don't think shipping a devel version with a bad version number is a good 
> idea. 

I don't think they're that well organized (unlike Debian, Redhat's focus
is on selling cdrom's, not making a system).  So the importance of version
numbers is not something they're inclined to want to discuss (that's my
experience anyway - ymmv).

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey