-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:11:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> [senseless examples skipped]
Ha!
Exactly what are you trying to prove? "My repo is more
consistent than
your repo"?
I don't have a repository.
Didn't I mention that there was evolution in the
versioning scheme, _parts of which_ were discussed with fedora.us?
(and the examples are crap also,
Wrong choice of words here for my taste. Aggression causes me to block
off.
i.e. you are ranting about mozilla's
versioning scheme, which is a verbatim copy of rawhide ...)
mplayer isn't.
While the discussion with fedora.us back in March/April did create
some first specifications, others and I broke with fedora.us due to
the increased non-tolerance against other 3rd party repos.
So the maintainers of the old repos stepped back and kept and evolved
their own versioning schemes (This is a bit oversimplified, in reality
there were and are coordination efforts to keep the repos compatible).
How is your current versioning scheme defined?
> Packages in Fedora Core 1 will be newer than any packages in Red
Hat
> Linux. Only a few cases (e.g. comps, maybe comps-extras,
> redhat-release => fedora-release) need special treatment (probably an
> increased epoch).
You trimmed (and maybe didn't read) the following from my previous
reply: "That's why I changed the Subject on the main thread to contain
"Fedora Legacy". If one doesn't care about past releases, you don't
see the problem."
I refused to quote it. Does Fedora Legacy cover "old releases of
Fedora Core" (quote from
fedora.redhat.com) or also old release from
Red Hat Linux or also pre-Fedora 3rd party repositories?
- --
Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/gd940iMVcrivHFQRAksJAJ4lLetnPevG8WsC6LVFd5jEIqv/rwCdHO1k
1D+JQIBB423hIvTjUs2L75c=
=BFeU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----