On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:34:00AM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > > 	AFAIK binary packages should be compatible across
> > > 	1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2
> > > 	and
> > > 	1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2
> > > 
> > > 	but we dont go out of our way to mention this.
> > 
> > Is this really true ?
> > If so why do we have a packages/1.4 and packages/1.4.1 on the ftp server ?
> > Just using packages/1.4.x would make maintenance of binary packages easier.
> 
> is there any possible issue with pkgs having been linked with a static lib
> that may have had a bug in it that was fixed in newer releases?  

In that case, bunching them up is an even bigger win--any update will
overwrite the old package, unless the packge version were bumped in
the meantime. In _that_ case, the old package is no more broken than
it was before.