Re: Summary: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning
Giuliano P Procida writes:
> Having just re-read the section in the packaging manual, I note that
> dpkg does not chop version numbers by '.' but into non-numeric and
> numeric components [/usr/doc/dpkg/packaging.html/ch-versions.html].
> I would have thought that alpha < beta < gamma < pre (< rel) order
> nicely by themselves and if this is true in practice then you don't
> need the ~~ trick. I also don't see any need to hide ~ from the admin.
Problem: I don't think it is canonical that "beta" < "pre" wrt version
numbering. I just hope no upstream maintainer will ever use both of
them for a particular version of a package, but who knows...
Hiding ~ is just a matter of presenting the real upstream number,
which will surely have no ~ in it.
> which is just the same as Gregory's suggestion, but has an extra Pro
> for those people who like negative numbers in their version strings:
>
> 1.0~2 (alpha test)
> 1.0~1 (beta test)
> 1.0 (release)
Problem with it: you won't ever know how many steps will be necessary,
whereas you will now where to start from.
I'd say your proposal is interesting, but with a positive meaning for
numbers. It will allow:
1.0~pre
1.0~1alpha
1.0~1beta
With `~' followed by no numeric being seen as `~0'
> ((Alternative alternative: someone might want to order: 1.-c, 1.-b,
> 1.-a, 1, 1.a, 1.b, 1.c in which case "~" would also negate
> non-numerical components and you would need:
I must admit I don't see the need for that ;)
> > * Using epoch subversions, with "1-3:7.8.9" meaning the epoch only
> > overrides the 3rd point-level of the version (the "9" in "1-3:7.8.9").
> > * Generalized from Adam's numbering scheme, another approach would be
> > to extend epochs [snip]
>
> IMHO, epochs are really only needed to deal with mistakes in
> versioning and it is probably worth extending them so that they can
> apply to subcomponents (the advantage here is that a subepoch reflects
> more accurately the versioning problem and, as soon as a more major
> version change occurs, the subepoch can be discarded).
Well, maybe you're right. Both mechanisms may be useful for different
purposes.
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@mygale.org> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
isp-email: <ydirson@a2points.com> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.mygale.org/~ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: