[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    RE: Koffice?
From:       Gerke Kok <gerke.kok () tpa-nl ! com>
Date:       2001-04-06 6:22:17
[Download RAW message or body]

I full agree.
wkr,
Gerke

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Thomas Zander [mailto:zander@planescape.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, April 05, 2001 20:45
Aan: koffice@max.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de
Onderwerp: Re: Koffice?


On Thursday 05 April 2001 11:17, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2000 10:13, Chris Howells wrote:
> > BTW, to anybody developers: I've seen quite a few people confused with
> > the version numbers of KOffice (e.g. koffice-2.0.1.rpm, etc.). Would it
> > be possible to somehow make it less confusing -- perhaps bump the
version
> > number up to 2?
>
> Well that would be lying.... The next release of KOffice is of "1.1"
> quality, not 2.x. We've made a mistake with the version-numbering of
> previous koffice packages, but this would be simply propagating the
> mistake, no ?
> I agree that updating RPMs will be a problem, if the new version number is
> smaller :(
> This is a difficult issue and I'm not sure what to do.



What about making that numbering in the RPM's equal to the version of
KDELIBS 
it can be used with. So when a new version of kdelibs is released the
version 
of koffice is auto-updated..

Besides the fact that koffice will occasianally skip versions, I believe
this 
is the best solve when you regard that distro's mostly have a complete 
package, with everything that is current at the release of  KDE2.X

Besides; it is very handy to see which version of 'the rest of' kde is
needed 
for this koffice release...

Just my 2ct.


Hi, btw.

-- 
Thomas

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]