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

Re: version numbering

Robert Collins wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > Lars Bahner wrote:
> > > Please CC: me as I am not on this list!
> > 
> > > Upstream names the betas for as - as you no
> > > doubt already guessed.
> ...
> > > So now that there is no beta-versioning, the installer sees this
> > > as a lower number. I could of cource number the package as
> > > or, but I was wondering what The Right
> > > Thing To Do would be.
> > 
> > I think you have to resort to an epoch. Using seems
> > okay to me too. I don't think there is a Right Way.
> I think the ~ is the Right Way.
> < <

It is too late for that.  After the package has already been uploaded
as it is too late to rename it using a ~.  That is only
useful as learning for the future when uploading new beta packages.
But now that already exists the question was how to
deal with the released version.

I think or some such is best.  Avoid
using an epoc unless there is no other choice.  After is
released this ugly version string will disappear into the archive of
history.  But an epoc would remain forever into the future and there
would never be an escape outside of renaming the package.

An example where an epoc would be needed would be if was
uploaded as 7.3.3 instead.  The epoc is designed to handle this
problem and allows 1: to be later than 7.3.3 to fix that
situation.  But that is not the case here and the epoc can be avoided.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: