Re: Versioning of KVM

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Baruch Even wrote:
> Avi,
>
> Can you please decide on a normal version number for KVM? I currently
> use 0.0.2 in order to be able to use later a proper version number, If
> I'd use 2 now than any other sane version later such as 1.0 will be
> lower and I'll have to use a prefix to fix that. It would be nice if you
> could just use normal version numbers from the start so the Debian
> version number will be the same as your version number.
>
>   

Well, I'd have thought that the natural numbers are a perfectly sane 
numbering scheme.  However, I'll bow to tradition and the next release 
will be 0.3.

> Some other issues I had with packaging were clean targets that are
> either missing or incomplete. You can take a look at the .diff.gz file
> that is in http://people.debian.org/~baruch/kvm/ to see all the changes
> I needed to do to the package to build it. It is rather messy right now
> but you might be able to get some things you can incorporate in order to
> make packaging easier.
>   

My current tree has fixes for most of the problems.  I'll look at the 
clean targets (why are they necessary for packaging?)


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV