Re: versions numbers of tin & lynx (was Re: Recent upgrading notes.)
Craig Sanders <email@example.com> said:
> > Dpkg thinks the new version of ae is a downgrade [...]
> dselect won't do it right, I had to force [...]
I've reformatted ae`s version number (from 96.2 to 962) to work around
this, and uploaded a new package.
> Other packages which have a similar problem are tin & lynx.
> All this just highlights the need for consistency in version numbers for
> new releases of the same package.
It occurs to me that we might address this by redefining the meaning
of the Revision field (or, rather, what used to be a Revision field
and is now part of a combined upstream.version-debian.revision field).
If dselect were to base its upgrade decision on just this field
(sub-field, whatever),the package maintainer could better control
upgrade relationships between various instances of a package. If
the author-assigned upstream Version number goes from 493 to 296,
for example, the debian-maintainer assigned Revision number might
go from 8 to 9, or from 2.3 to 3.1.