Re: limits for package name and version (MBF alert: ... .deb filenames)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, James Vega wrote:
> 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.
The 0.DATE thing is from before we had support for "~". Yes, using "~"
has its advantages. It would be good to document "0~" as best practice
for when you have to cook up release date versioning.
You could also use just "~DATE". However, if you do that, and for some
reason someone needs to actually use a upstream version that sorts lower
than yours, the absolutely icky "~~" will make its debut. IMO, that's a
good enough reason to recommend "0~" as a prefix instead of just "~" :)
OTOH, sometimes you know upstream is extremely unlikely to ever release 0.1
or 1.0 for whatever reason. In that case, "0." is just that much more
palatable than "0~", and I for one would rather keep using that in those
cases. I.e. "maintainer's discretion, but here are the reasons to use one
or the other ..."
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot