On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 18:05, Jason Huebel wrote: > On Thursday 12 August 2004 12:36 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > From what I remember this was not the initial idea. Maybe your position is > > better, but some discussion might be appropriate. I think it should be done > > consistently for the different architectures. > > If the idea has been that profiles don't necessarily track the version of the > release, then I think profiles should have a different version numbering > scheme. Using 2004.0, 2004.1, 2004.2, etc implies that the profile should be > tracking with the release. > > 2 cents.. cha-ching! Precisely! When seemant and I first talked about the cascading profile implementation, we had every intention of avoiding release specific versioning scheme. AFAIK, this is still the case. I still think that this is the best route to follow due to the fact that not much changes between releases. If there are special cases (take xorg for example), we can always make an exception to the rule. Cheers, -- John Davis Gentoo Linux Developer ---- GnuPG Public Key: Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C 2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB