Re: Version strings for backports

[Vlada Macek <tuttle@sandbox.cz>]

Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> 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.
>   

Yes, until we reach version 10.0.

I'm not aware the filenames are to compare somewhere.

-- 
\//\/\


begin:vcard
fn:Vlada Macek
n:Macek;Vlada
adr:;;;Liberec;;;Czech Republic
email;internet:tuttle@sandbox.cz
title:UNIX Admin && Developer
tel;cell:+420 608 978 164
note;quoted-printable:GPG info: key 0x1F059424, fingerprint 1494 F8DD 6379 4CD7 E7E3 1FC9 D750=
	 4243 1F05 9424=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	When you find a virus in mail from me, then I intended to infect you, sin=
	ce I use SW that is not distributing malware w/o my knowledge.=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard