Re: version numbers
> I wrote:
> > The leading zero is clearly intended to imply a decimal point.
>
> Julian Gilbey writes:
> > Erm, by extension, we would have 1.11 < 1.2 if the "." is interpreted as
> > a decimal point, but 1.11 > 1.2 if it is a major/minor separator.
>
> I said nothing about interpreting the '.' as a decimal point.
True, but you did seem to be suggesting that dpkg should treat a
leading zero in a special way.
> > So what will you do when the upstream authors then have version 1.11,
> > 1.12 followed by version 1.2? There is no leading zero here to help.
>
> No leading zero, therefor no implied decimal point. No problem.
Yes problem: your upstream authors will think of 1.12 as prior to 1.2,
dpkg will think the reverse is true.
> > But *don't* try changing dpkg on this one.
>
> I have no intention whatsoever of attempting to change dpkg in any way.
Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant that dpkg should not be changed. Too
much could go wrong.
> > Alternatives have been suggested, such as using a version number of 1.10,
> > especially as this is being interpreted as a decimal point, so 1.1 and
> > 1.10 are the same numerically!
>
> But it isn't, and they aren't. It looks as if the consensus is that this
> is what I have to do anyway, though.
See my other post for a suggestion of how epochs could be used here in
a relatively clean way.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer. jdg@debian.org
-*- Finger jdg@master.debian.org for my PGP public key. -*-
Reply to: