Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh 1.1 release candidate 4

[Harald Geyer]

> > Josh Bressers <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > Might I suggest we call it 1.2 to avoid confusion.
> > 
> > > I have used the nmh-1.1.tar.gz to create the Fedora Core nmh packages, so
> > > having a new nmh tarball with the same version is going to cause some pai
> n
> > > for any packagers who have used that source.
> > 
> > I'm not the maintainer for the Debian package, but 1.2 would be better
> > for Debian as well.
> > 
> > Peter
> 
> Having a bit of trouble parsing this; didn't get Josh's note for some reason.
> Are you wanting RC4 called 1.2, or are you wanting the eventual release calle
> d
> 1.2?  I pulled the 1.1 file from the web site yesterday because Ken told me
> that it had problems and that the only reason that it was up there was becaus
> e
> it was too much trouble to take it down.

AFAIK nobody has discussed the nameing of the RC yet. But several people
asked to call the new release 1.2 instead of 1.1 because it seems that
at least Fedora and Debian include Ken's release as 1.1. Actually
nmh 1.1 is even in Debian stable aka sarge.

Grüße,
Harald