Re: how do deal with versionless mercurial software ?
+++ Dominik George [2013-10-02 15:49 +0200]:
> Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p@rezozer.net> schrieb:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am packaging a versionless library software maintained via a
> >mercurial repository.
> >Is there any custom for this case ?
> I tend to use:
>
> 0~YYYYMMDD+hgXXXXXX
>
> It sorts just below anything upstream might invent later (I don't like epoch).
This is good advice. I've been bitten by just using YYYYMMDD as the
version on unversioned code, and then upstream eventually inventing a
version number, which of course is much smaller than 20 million, so I
had to put in an epoch. Which doesn't really matter but just seems
kind of annoying and unnecessary.
The 'use an ISO date as version' idea comes from advice in the
developer packaging docs somewhere. It would be good if this 0~ trick
was mentioned there too so one could decide whether to use it or not
at the time of initial packaging.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: