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

Re: 0.01-6 > 0.1-3 ?????

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 04:51:20PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > No, it shouldn't. Consider, eg, treating 2.2.9 and 2.2.10 as "2, 0.2,
> > 0.9" and "2, 0.2, 0.10".
> > 
> Yes, i am obviously wrong, trying to compare 0.9 and 0.10 is incorrect, as
> is treating 0.1 as equal to 0.01

Should it have been 2.2.09 then?  What do we do when we reach 2.2.99 and
have need of a 2.2.100?  It happened with 2.3.x didn't it?

There is a reason things are done as they are, even if it seems to not be
obvious at first.  Frankly, some standard was needed, and the one that was
chosen was the one which seemed to make the most sense to the people who
were doing the work at the time.  They chose to read . as a delimiter
rather than a decimal because that is how it is most commonly used in
version numbers,  There are much more annoying things about how dpkg
handles versions to argue about and IMO the effort would be better spent
solving those problems - for example dpkg still lacks a method to identify
a pre-version.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>         Do not write in this space
0 7     * * *   echo "...Linux is just a fad" | mail billg@microsoft.com -s "And remember..."

Attachment: pgpR0IPN8jPjP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: