*To*: Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>*Cc*: debian-devel@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-*From*: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>*Date*: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:17:43 +0200*Message-id*: <[🔎] 87slk3j1fs.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>*In-reply-to*: <[🔎] 44DBBD7B.8020909@teco.edu> (Michael Biebl's message of "Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200")*References*: <20060808235835.GA19278@lapse.madduck.net> <[🔎] 87mzae1a7d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <[🔎] 44DBBD7B.8020909@teco.edu>

* Michael Biebl: > So, what should I do now: > 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-) > 2.) Use an epoch. > 3.) File a bug report against dpkg. 2) is the typical approach. > If it's not a bug in dpkg, could someone please elaborate on the > reasoning of this behaviour. "." is not special as far as version numbers are concerned. It's not a separator, for instance, and "1." is a valid version number (which is equal to "1.0"). We need a total ordering of version strings, and any approach is arbitrary to some degree because we don't want to use purely lexicographic comparison (otherwise, "9.x" would be greater than "10.x", which is clearly counterintuitive). There are upstream version number schemes for which the Policy algorithm works perfectly well (1.01, 1.02, ..., 1.09, 1.10, ...) and others where it doesn't.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

**References**:**Re: dak now supports ~ in version numbers***From:*Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

**dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]** - Next by Date:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]** - Previous by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]** - Next by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-** - Index(es):