Re: version numbers
In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote:
> James Mastros writes:
> > Package it as version 1:1.1; next time package as 1:2.0.2, which will
> > give the ordering you're looking for. (The 1: is an "era"; it won't
> > normaly get displayed. Made for just this sort of thing.)
>
> It's an "epoch", I believe. I know about epochs, but I've never seen
> anyone suggest using them without meeting with cries of outrage. Thus I
> would like to avoid them if at all possible.
>
> I am also just a bit astonished by the notion that 1.1 < 1.02.
Which is greater? 2.1.24 or 2.1.107
If 2.1.107 < 2.1.24, then you have an ascii sort.
If 2.1.24 < 2.1.107, then you have a numerical sort.
It seems that dpkg is doing a numerical sort, which I don't find
that unreasonable. Consider the Linux kernal versioning (which
this example is taken from).
Digit placement, (such as that used in 1.02) should not be used in
a versioning scheme, because it places predetermined limits on the
number of revisions that can happen within a given level.
Instead, dots (.) should be used to separate revision levels, and
leading zeros within a level should be ignored within a numerical
field.
-Mitch
Reply to: