[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev progress on pre.2

From: Frédéric L . W . Meunier
Subject: Re: lynx-dev progress on pre.2
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:32:22 -0200 (BRST)

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 address@hidden wrote:

> 040116 Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 address@hidden wrote:
> >>> occasionally, there mb a special bugfix version eg .
> >> ? A bugfix version with a higher number than a dev ?
> > I don't know who would do the work to maintain bug-fix versions.
> for heavens' sake (attempts a smile):
> my point is re version numbers, not the process of development.
> as for bugfix numbers, XFCE just released ,
> which is explicitly described as a bugfix for 4.0.3 .
> XFCE 4.0.1  4.0.2  4.0.3  have contained minor fixes
> simpler than those which have characterised Lynx 2.8.5dev.14  15  16  17 ;
> the difference between XFCE 4.0 & 4.2 wb roughly equivalent
> to that between Lynx 2.8.4 & 2.8.5 .
> does anyone else here follow other projects ?

XFCE doesn't have dev and pre or similar, so what do you
propose for them ?

And what's wrong with the kernel versioning numbering ? It uses
pre and rc, and I really doubt Gentoo and other distributions
don't include most of their changes. I guess they could do the
same for Lynx and other projects if they bothered to spend some
time following them.

> >>> this shd result in distros updating their Lynxes more often.
> >> It isn't the version numbering that prevents them from updating it.
> >> Actually, nothing does. They could have stable and unstable branches.
> (attempts another smile): they are put off by the design'n 'dev',
> which in the case of Lynx for several years has not meant 'unstable'.
> Lynx 2.8.5dev.16 is perfectly stable -- i use it daily w/o problems -- ,
> it's simply an unnecessarily lengthy, misleading & eccentric method
> of numbering versions, which needs to be brought upto date.

What probably means that the Lynx packager for Gentoo doesn't
follow its development or don't want to bother with dev and
pre. In this case, do you think calling 2.9dev.1 2.9.1 will
change their mind ? I doubt, after all and
exist for a reason.

> i'm pleased to note that TD says "yes, maybe".
> in the absence of intelligent objections, can we make that a "yes" ?

Well, it's up to him to change it. I like the actual numbering,
and would use it the right way.

Wait a minute. I do for the Cygwin packages, and call them
lynx2-2.8.5dev.16b-1.tar.bz2, lynx2-2.8.5dev.17-1.tar.bz2
(lynx2 to not overwrite the distributed lynx - and install in
/usr/local). Are other package management tools so braindead
that dev, pre, and rel can't be used ?

Cygwin calls 2.8.4rel.1d 2.8.4-7
Slackware... 2.8.4rel.1d 2.8.4-i386-5
Debian calls 2.8.5dev.7 2.8.5-2.5

And so on.

Maybe removing the dot would help: rel1d, dev7...


; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]