Re: Dpkg and version numbering
>>>>> "JG" == Jason Gunthorpe <email@example.com> writes:
JG: On 12 Aug 1997, Milan Zamazal wrote:
:: I have the following problem with dpkg version numbering:
:: dpkg considers version numbers 2.01 and 2.1 being equal. Yes,
:: it is according to algorithm described in dpkg manual, but I'm
:: not sure whether this is the best behaviour.
JG: I would not recommend doing this, although it looks correct in
JG: the case you gave, what about things like: 2.01.1 vs 2.1.1
JG: Which is newer? It could become confusing to us humans..
Newer is 2.1 and I have no influence on the version numbering of the
original program (I'm not its author). I think 2.1.1 is not a good
solution (maybe it could be some future version, or author could even
choose something like 2.1.01 :-), but 2.1.0 seems to be more safe.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .