Re: Version strings for backports
> Daniel Baumann wrote:
>> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe ~bpo31-N / ~bpo40-N ?
>>>
>> i like ~bpo.$suite.$int better, e.g. ~bpo.sarge.1 or ~bpo.etch.1
>>
>
> If I may contribute, I think more people are familiar with the names
> (sarge, etch, ...) than the versions (3.1, 4.0, ...). Also the names are
> clear, whereas looking at the package file, numbers add another mystery
> for many.
Problem is that numeric versions do compare correctly, while names don't.
Reply to: