Re: version numbers
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 11:10:26PM -0500, John Hasler 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.
Yes, I got bitten by dpkg's logic too when I was packaging musixlyr.
Old version: 1.02, new version: 1.1. Coincident? :-)
Anyway, Brian White suggested me to use 1.10 instead of 1.1 in order to
avoid the epoch. And lo and behold, it worked! :-) So, use two
digits after the decimal from now on, until the upstream author releases
version 2.x, then you can use the scheme "2.0.2" as suggested above.
Not too pretty, but prettier than epoch. :-)
Anthony
--
Anthony Fok Tung-Ling Civil and Environmental Engineering
foka@ualberta.ca, foka@debian.org University of Alberta, Canada
anthony_fok@catholic.org Keep smiling! *^_^*
Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://www.olvc.ddns.org/
or http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/OLVC/
Reply to: