Re: version numbers

[John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>]

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.  

> 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.

> But *don't* try changing dpkg on this one.

I have no intention whatsoever of attempting to change dpkg in any way.

> 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.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI