next net release preliminary info

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:45:46PM +1100, Andrew Dalgleish wrote:
>Just a thought...
>I like the way debian number their packages with the "upstream" version
>as the most significant, and the "debian" version as the least
>significant.
>This makes it easy to identify which upstream version you are using, and
>also allows for more than one package version.

That's not a bad idea.  Doesn't Red Hat do something similar?  I"m
embarassed to admit that I don't know.

>One question:
>For packages like the GNU fileutils etc, will the source tarballs
>include the original source + patches (similar to debian) or pre-patched
>source files?
>
>I prefer the former because:
>Pros:
>* A stand-alone patch helps document what had to change to make the
>package work under cygwin.
>* A patch for version X will often (?) work for version X+1.
>* One package maintainer computes the diff vs many package downloaders
>doing it, perhaps incorrectly.
>
>Cons:
>* Harder to build. (And hence more noise on the list)
>* More work for the package maintainer. (Hmm, not good... :-)

Hmm.  I like the idea but the "Cons" scare me.

cgf