Re: compile errors on swarm-2002-05-14

[Paul E Johnson]

James Haefner wrote:
> They're prominent enough, just give us some indication that these are 
> indeed rpms of the latest version.  The files are named 2.1.date and 
> while the date is recent, I wasn't assured that the date reflected the 
> development snapshot and not simply the date on the rpm build.  Rpms are 
> typically behind development. Perhaps a third level version number on 
> the development and rpms would remove confusion.
I'm firmly within the RPM standard on file names.  Consider:

http://lark.cc.ku.edu/~pauljohn/Swarm/Swarm-2.2x_RPMSforRH7.3/swarm-2.1.140.20020514-1.i386.rpm

The number before the dash is the software's version number.

I append the date of the snapshot 20020510 because the tarballs have 
names like:

swarm-2002-05-10.tar.gz

Even though the Version file inside says it is 2.1.140 or such. If I 
make more than one RPM from a given source package, I change the number 
after the - to reflect that.

--
Paul E. Johnson                       email: address@hidden
Dept. of Political Science            http://lark.cc.ku.edu/~pauljohn
1541 Lilac Lane, Rm 504
University of Kansas                  Office: (785) 864-9086
Lawrence, Kansas 66044-3177           FAX: (785) 864-5700


                 ==================================
  Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
  to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
  [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
  with "help" in the body of the message.