Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

[Adam Klein <aklein@eskimo.com>]

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 06:48:28PM +0000, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote:
> > 
> > Ugh. There really should be something in the Policy Manual against using
> > 'pre'. It doesn't seem to be a widely known fact, but according to dpkg:
> > 
> > $dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.7pre-3 lt 2.0.7-4 || echo 'Uhoh... 2.0.7pre-4 > 2.0.7-5'
> > Huhoh... 2.0.7pre-4 > 2.0.7-5
> > 
> > Well, I suppose one could use 'rel' instead of an epoch:
> 
> What's wrong with using epochs? I guess it will be easier for our users
> to find Debian's package of libc6 version 2.0.7 as libc6_2.0.7-1.deb
> than as libc6_2.0.7rel-1.deb. Isn't the "rel" stuff an unnecessary
> modification of the upstream version number?

There's nothing wrong with using epochs.
The point is that he shouldn't have used 'pre' in the first place.
>From section 5 of the packaging manual, on the subject of epochs:

   Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind
   mistakes in version numbering, and to cope with situations where
   the version numbering changes. It is not there to cope with version
   numbers containing strings of letters which dpkg cannot interpret
   (such as ALPHA or pre-), or with silly orderings (the author of
   this manual has heard of a package whose versions went 1.1, 1.2,
   1.3, 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2 and so forth).

--
Adam Klein