On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, David Maxwell wrote:
> > > So, that said, I can't think of any other issues with replacing a
> > > 1.4 package with a 1.4.1 (etc) package.
> > 
> > 	OK - I've been convinced. I'm now on the 'merge point releases
> > 	into one dir' side of the fence.
> 
> I'd vote not. I'm not sure if it was reverted, but 1.4.1+ had an
> lkm-breaking change. So filesystem packages would be different before and
> after that change.

Your example argues for an even finer distinction than the status
quo--there's presently no way to tell if a 1.4.1 package is built
against netbsd-1-4_PATCH001 or a later release branch. An even better
example is ipfilter. Fortunately, the binaries affected all live in
the main distribution, but we should, by rights, be nwo at 1.4.1.2.

I can think of one another reason to preserve the distinction. The
dependencies on the auto-generated web page are for the current
package, not necessarily for any older binary packages. So at least
1.4/1.4.1 will signal people that the package is old, and thus may be
"broken" in some way.

I think it best to keep the distinction, and just say that packages
for 1.4, 1.4.1, and 1.4.2 or "mostly" interchangeable, that is, to
suggest folks go with the newest one for their branch unless/until
they encounter particular problems.