Re: version numbers
> I wrote:
> > I am also just a bit astonished by the notion that 1.1 < 1.02.
>
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Numerically this is the same as saying 1.1 < 1.2 or 1.01 < 1.02. Dpkg
>
> The leading zero is clearly intended to imply a decimal point. This is in
> no way incompatible with the kernel numbering system.
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.
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.
So you have a choice: either bug the upstream authors to change their
numbering scheme to something standard (how do I know whether 1.7 is
the latest and 1.11 is antiquated or vice versa using their scheme?),
or use the suggestion below. But *don't* try changing dpkg on this
one.
> This is irrelevant, though. Dpkg is not going to change, and the upstream
> author has made his decisions. Must I use an epoch?
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!
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: