Re: New pangzero version available - going to break current one with new SDL-perl
On 13/03/12 18:27, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Le Tuesday 13 March 2012 07:30:15, Tobias Leich a écrit :
>> I dont get what you mean. From a perl view 1.401 is 1.401000 and
>> 1.4.1 is 1.400100 and 1.5 is 1.500000.
>
> Indeed, but this interpretation may be diffrent for other tools
> used downstream (i.e. dpkg or rpm). Mostly, because these tools
> must also work for other softwares.
dpkg, rpm, pkg-config etc. all behave consistently if you stick to
dotted digits, I believe, although they may differ in corner cases.
Perl is relatively unusual in viewing version numbers with exactly one
dot as being decimal. Linux 2.6.9 was followed by 2.6.10, micro
releases of Linux 2.6.32 look like 2.6.32.41, and many projects
(including all of GNOME) have similar version-comparison rules. For
that matter, the Perl interpreter switched its versioning rules before
5.6, with 5.8.x followed by 5.10.0.
(This is one under-appreciated reason to put two dots in the version
numbers of new projects, if your mental model is like dpkg etc., with
version numbers being a tuple of integers: if you see a version like
2.6.32, there's no way it can possibly be a decimal number, so it's
harder to misinterpret version 2.10 as being older than 2.8.)
> I think it's better to spell things out to ease downstream's life.
> That's why I always release CPAN distrib with version with 3 digits
> after the major: i.e. 1.500 . No downstream packager has complained
> with that.
If you do that *consistently*, then it's fine: if you have only ever
released versions that look like 2.006, then you can release what I'd
call version 2.6.8 as 2.006008, and the versions compare in the same
order regardless of whether you're asking dpkg or Perl. On the other
hand, if you have released a version called 2.6, it's pretty weird for
the next version to be 2.601, and the next version after that had
better not be 2.7 (although it can be 2.700 if you insist).
Reply to: