[desktop-discuss] Re: perl-gtk2 spec files.

[Mike Kiedrowski]

I guess I really can't think of a good reason to choose one over the 
other, both seem reasonable.
I would have to say 'b',  just seems clearer to me than adding it to the 
perl version number.

~Mike


Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> I set the version of all SFEperl-* packages to 5.8.4, because the
> extend perl 5.8.4.  If you install a newer version of perl, they
> won't work because the perl version number is in the path names.
> You could potentially have another instance of these packages
> installed, with a different version number, that extend perl 5.6.1.
>
> We could
>   a) append the component version number to the perl version number,
>         e.g. SFEperl-cairo 5.8.4.1.022
>      or
>
>   b) include the component version number in the package summary,
>         e.g  Cairo perl bindings 1.022
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Laca
>
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:25 -0600, Mike Kiedrowski wrote:
>   
>> *drat* hit relpy instead of reply all.....
>>
>>
>> Hi Damien,
>>
>> The perl module spec file I used as an example from the repository 
>> (SFEperl-io-dynamic to be exact) was done that way. That's the only 
>> reason. I actually agree that using the module version makes more sense. 
>> Maybe it should be changed?
>>
>> ~Mike
>>
>> Damien Carbery wrote:
>>     
>>> They build grand on my system.
>>>
>>> Why did you give them 5.8.4 as the version (I know it is the version of perl on the system). I would have expected you to use the module version number.
>>>       
>
>
>
>
>