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 0.7.3.3 as 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 - 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 > > > 0.7.3.3.c or 0.7.3.3.final, but I was wondering what The Right > > > Thing To Do would be. > > > > I think you have to resort to an epoch. Using 0.7.3.3.final seems > > okay to me too. I don't think there is a Right Way. > > I think the ~ is the Right Way. > 0.7.3.3~b1 < 0.7.3.3~b30 < 0.7.3.3 It is too late for that. After the package has already been uploaded as 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 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 0.7.3.3.b1-b30 already exists the question was how to deal with the released version. I think 0.7.3.3.final or 0.7.3.3.released some such is best. Avoid using an epoc unless there is no other choice. After 0.7.3.4 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 0.7.3.3 was uploaded as 7.3.3 instead. The epoc is designed to handle this problem and allows 1:0.7.3.3 to be later than 7.3.3 to fix that situation. But that is not the case here and the epoc can be avoided. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature