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.
Huh?
Try dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-1~bpo90.1 lt 1.1-1~bpo100.1 && echo true
> I'm not aware the filenames are to compare somewhere.
Huh?
Since when package version strings are not compared?
Reply to: