On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 19:31:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > However, I think this whole bit really doesn't belong in Policy. For > packages that are snapshot-based with no regular version number but one > that might show up later, I'd use 0~YYYYMMDD. For ones that are > pre-releases, I'd use <new-version>~YYYYMMDD. For ones that postdate an > existing version, I'd use <old-version>+YYYYMMDD. But all of that feels > like best practices stuff. > Agreed. > Similarly, I'm not seeing why we should say YYYYMMDD should be used for > Debian native packages, as opposed to YYYY.MM.DD or some other format that > sorts properly. > > I therefore think we should rewrite this whole section to remove most of > the details and instead just say not to ever use date-based formats like > 96May01 and instead use something based off of YYYYMMDD, possibly with > punctuation (but not -). > > If that sounds good, I can work on new language. Sounds good to me. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature