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

[Peter S Galbraith]

I wrote:

> I'm not the maintainer for the Debian package, but 1.2 would be better
> for Debian as well.

Nick Rusnov <address@hidden> wrote:

> I guess I should pipe up with why debian has a 1.1-release nmh package.
> 
[...]
> Even though the the package is version 1.1-release it wouldn't be much
> of an imposition to have another 1.1 "real" release, as I could version
> it a variety of ways (1.1-release-official and 1.1-release2 evaluate as
> 'greater' versions than 1.1-release, and of course 1.2 is greater than
> 1.1-release also). Maybe to reduce users' confusion 1.2 would be better,
> but it can't be claimed that its needed for package management version
> control.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that packaging was an issue (using an
epoch is ugly but is also a solution).  I also meant that it's easier
for _interested_ users to see an increase in version number rather than
complicated annotations to version number (such as 1.1-release-official).

But most users will simply upgrade the package along with others in the
distribution without even knowing anyway (using aptitude or apt-get).

Peter
MH-E developer and its Debian maintainer with no nmh skills to speak of ;-)