Re: Summary[2]: dpkg and alpha/beta versioning
Excellent summary, thanks Yann.
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 12:44:55PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Con: against the current Packaging Manual's guidelines (section 5):
> "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)."
Isn't the packaging manual indicating here that such version
strings should not be used in the first place? The manual says
`which dpkg cannot interpret'; if dpkg handles these by luck
rather than by design, should we be using it? Would Ian & Klee
(and other dpkg maintainers) be well within their right to break it?
Of course, it's done now (for libc6) and needs to be fixed, which
is what epochs are for, even if the manual says they aren't. They fix
incorrect version numbers, but the manual is warning against making
such mistakes in the first place. IMHO.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: