Re: Please consider a more convenient versioning of your download tarball
Hi again,
I wonder if you understood the hint I've recently sent you. At least
the fact that you released a new version tarball with the same version
scheme which diverges from every project I've seen before makes me think
that you did not noticed my mail. Or may be its since I just forgot to
point you to some expert tips for version numbering given here:
https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Releases_and_Versions
Please be so kind to switch to a sortable versioning scheme either for
your next release or rename it right now. Your users will be thankful
to you.
Thanks for considering
Andreas.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:29:52PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I'm writing you on behalf of the Debian Med team which is a team inside
> Debian with the objective to package free software in life sciences and
> medicine for official Debian. On our so called biology tasks page we
> are also listing beagle[1] since it is also included in Debian. As you
> see on this page[1] it seems that there is a new upstream version
> available but this is actually not really the case.
>
> The reason for this "new upstream version" warning is that you are using
> a quite unconvenient versioning system for your download archive. That's
> pretty ... uhmmm, I have no idea how to describe - amongst our more than
> 500 packages there is no project where you can not sensibly sort download
> archives alphabethically. So I would suggest you could change the current
>
> beagle.27Jul16.86a.src.zip
>
> into something like
>
> beagle.160727.86a.src.zip
>
> or something like this since your date format does not help in sorting
> and leads to confusion on users side (probably not only for Debian
> users).
>
> Thanks for your cooperation
>
> Andreas.
>
>
> [1] https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio#beagle
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: