Re: limits for package name and version (MBF alert: ... .deb filenames)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 07:31:22PM -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:28:07PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > In this sense, most reasonable solution seems to me
> > 0.YYMMDD
> > This way, when ever upstream decide to release package with sane
> > versioning (usually bigger than 1.) within 8 chars and we can continue
> > without epoch. But this is not documented anywhere.
> Why assume the first version will be >= 1.x? It's not uncommon to use
> 0.x. Using 0~YYMMDD seems a safer option to reduce the chance of
> needing an epoch if/when upstream starts using actual version numbers.
Well... I was dreaming and asking the same question last night :-)
For next 88 years, we can do this :-)