R7.0: missing xterm and libdrm, and version numbers

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Detlef Vollmann wrote:

>>> And third: most modules have a version number of 0.99.0.
>>> What will be their number for RC1: 0.99.x, 1.99.0, or something else?
>>
>> That depends.  If they've been modified since RC0, they'll be 0.99.x, where x
>>> = 0 by however many revisions have occured to each package since RC0.  If
>> they haven't been modified, then they'll still be 0.99.0.

> Thanks.  I'm currently trying to put together a coherent set of packages
> for OpenEmbedded, and 0.99.x just doesn't mix well with existent
> packages in terms of "<=" runtime dependencies.  So I will just
> prepend a "6.99." and drop the leading "0.", resulting in "6.99.99.x",
> which should compare fine with existing version numbers.
> And I'll leave existing non-0.99.x version numbers, like for libXft.

Please see xorg-modular emails:

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/2005-August/000631.html

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/2005-August/000632.html

http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/2005-August/000633.html

Maybe we should build a list of vendors that have been widely using the 
"experimental" xlibs where decreasing the version numbers doesn't make 
sense.

Xrandr-1.0.2 is used by pkgsrc (NetBSD and others).

(I don't see problem for Fedora or Debian from a quick look.)

What specific packages for OpenEmbedded?



  Jeremy C. Reed

  	  	 	 BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
 	  	 	 http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/