Re: lynx-dev bug report

[Frederic L. W. Meunier]

"T.E.Dickey" <address@hidden> wrote:
>perhaps it's 2.8.2dev.11 (which adds a chunk of diskspace for the i18n
>code using gettext).  We're still discussing what fraction of that can
>be discarded (e.g., the libintl.a source code), but that's likely where
>it came from.  It would be nice if the rpm contained enough information
>to relate it to the development version, but I've found the changelogs
>to be rather sketchy (the associated patches are really the only useful
>clues, but not all rpm's contain them, forcing me to do diff's).

2.8.2dev.11? Why include devel versions in a productive distribution? AFAIK,
RedHat never ships with devel stuff (they're using Slang 1.2.2...). In the
past I discussed about it in the Rawhide Mailing List because they released
the util-linux package with the version like this:
util-linux-2.9-XX.src.rpm
Anyone knows that util-linux 2.9 is shipped with a letter after the numbers.
2.9o, 2.9v... Using 2.9-XX you never know what version you are getting.

Maybe the Lynx developers (you?) should contact the RedHat team for this. I
don't think shipping a devel version with a bad version number is a good
idea.