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

Re: Package Numbering



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, "OleJørgenTetlie" wrote:
> SmallEiffel (which I am packaging) uses negative version numbering.
> I assume dpkg can't handle that (it thinks -0.86 is later than -0.85,
> which it obviously isn't). The numbering is in the interval
> between -1 and 0. How should I map the version numbers to package
> numbers. My proposal is: n |-> n+1 , that is add one to the number.
> This maps version -1 (not released) to 0, and version -0 (the final)
> to 1, and preserving order inbetween. Is that OK?

As soon as our package system does not allow negative version numbers, I
can't think of a better solution. I would just suggest to add the real
negative version number at the end of the extended description in the
control file. for example "Note: This is based on SmallEiffel -0.85"
just to avoid confusion.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1

iQCVAgUBM1SobCqK7IlOjMLFAQFbWAP9EDPmOamMZEJ8bzETQho8ewuFaVRsW1iV
8Jyboa+I3zLB9+WrKISno1PJ5nKO+H4225uQ32YY+R+40Cm2mdIHJVrzfzEjUgAZ
rcvHPXhimVGLBflFPJE85zuPARwof3JYMtV8hLasZOxjgiBGb0B7XzzyD1MGAJVX
WPD6paNheds=
=2oZi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: