[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: versions numbers of tin & lynx (was Re: Recent upgrading notes.)

Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> 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.

Reply to: