The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org.

Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org."):
...
> [Erick Branderhorst:]
> > [Dirk Eddelbuettel:]
> > > I think that dpkg for example, even though it looks like a.b.c,
> > > really numbers as a.b-revision. Whenever Ian overlooks something at
> > > compile time (as opposed to a new major function, ie the jumps from
> > > 0.93.x to 1.0.x to 1.1.x), he increases the last number which hence
> > > is a *de facto revision field*.
> >
> > I don't look in the kitchen of Ian J that much but I think he is
> > using the last field as a patch field. That is what it should be
> > used for.
> 
> Exactly. It already *is* a revision field. So why is it so difficult to call
> a revision field a revision field? 

You have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the revision in a
Debian package version number.

The revision we are talking about is the Debian packaging version
number, as opposed to the upstream version number.

This has nothing to do with patchlevels.

Ian.

PS: SuperCite -- just say `no'.  Even the author now considers it to
have been a terrible mistake.