Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits))

[Chris B . Vetter]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:18:43 +0100 (BST)
Nicola Pero <nicola@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> > That reminds me...
> > Am I missing some header files or is only GNUSTEP_BASE_VERSION
> > defined?
> > A more general GNUSTEP_VERSION definition (for overall progress) would
> > come in handy, occasionally.
> the problem is, a more general GNUSTEP_VERSION does not make sense any
> longer.
> gnustep-make, gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, gnustep-x?ps are now separate
> packages, which can (and are) released at different times with different
> version numbers.  Each one should have its own version variables.

I agree. However, people ARE looking for a more general version.
Imagine the following:

- "Hey, what version is GNUstep you are running?"
- "Oh, I have make-1.0.2, base-1.0.0, gui-0.9.0 and xgps-0.6.9..."
- "Never mind"

See what I mean? Though each package has it's own version number, there
should be one to reflect the over-all status, even if it's the one of
the package with the lowest version number (that is x[d,g]ps)

-- 
Chris