Re: Version numbering scheme according to date
Andreas Tille wrote:
> I also follow the adivise I've got
> some years ago to use: 0.0.YYYYMMDD - this is nearly save if
> upstream starts using real version numbers.
NACK. 0.0.1 < 0.0.2009XXYY
"Really" safe is 0~yyyymmdd or even 0+yyyymmdd. This is what I would
suggest. We use this for tarballs based on pure SVN checkouts
which don't have any version number (0+svnXXXX).
However, upstream seems to use the date in their tarball names,
so I cannot agree to your critics here and suggest to stay with
the official release numbering. If upstream ever changes to something
like x.y.z, *then* the Debian package should change to 1:x.y.z.
Otherwise users might be confused by the version of the Debian package.
> So for the next
> upload I would strongly advise to use 1:0.0.2009MMDD as version
> (the period is needed to let dpkg notice the higher version).
As I said: I cannot agree, but it's not my package. So:
just my 2 cents
Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a