Re: Version strings for backports
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.
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=
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=