Re: beta version numbers?
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 09:34:36PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Hmm, but how about an 1.2beta6 ?
> How about 1.2-beta6 lt 1.2.0? Works 'cos '-' < '.'.
You mean using 1.2.0-1 instead of 1.2-1 ? But then, we could also use
1.2beta6, since 1.2beta6 lt 1.2.0 according to dpkg. Still, I'd better
like the version numbers of the beta versions mangled (like "1.2-beta6.1)
than to be forced to have released versions with version numbers that
differ from upstream (like "1.2.0" for an upstream "1.2").
I think I'll keep my 1.999a4 numbering scheme until I hear a better
solution anyway ;-)