Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> > > Something along the lines of
> > >
> > > foo-1.2.2-1.2.3alpha-1
> >
> > In which case, this comes out as
> >
> > > foo_1.2.2_1.2.3alpha-1
>
> or even
>
> foo_1.2.2-1.2.3alpha-1
Whoa. Are these legal? Are we sure that it's OK to have an
underscore *inside* a version, or to have more than one dash within a
version. By OK, I don't just mean "does dpkg choke on it".
Perhaps this is OK, but we should be careful. If we get too liberal
with our allowable version strings, we may very well wind up painting
ourselves into the proverbial corner in the future. The more liberal
you get, the harder it is to parse things. Is
"foo-1.2.2-1.2.3alpha-1" Debian revision "-1" or Debian revision
"-1.2.3alpha-1"?
Playing fast and loose with the grammar may also break some hidden
assumptions in some of our auxilliary tools. We really should be
reasonably strict in specifying the makeup of the version string, or
it will be really hard to design tools that aren't likely to break.
You don't have to be nearly as strict about the contents of each
"field" in the version number as you do about how the fields are
delimited.
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: