[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#186102: version numbering for date-releases is flawed



On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 09:58:39AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposal that tries to implement that.  Objections or seconds?

> Someone may want to follow up with a patch to the devref to provide more
> details about when to choose what form of a version number and how to use
> ~ appropriately.

> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index ec1acee..acef23b 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -849,36 +849,30 @@
>  
>  	  <p>
>  	    In general, Debian packages should use the same version
> -	    numbers as the upstream sources.
> -	  </p>
> -
> -	  <p>
> -	    However, in some cases where the upstream version number is
> -	    based on a date (e.g., a development "snapshot" release) the
> -	    package management system cannot handle these version
> -	    numbers without epochs. For example, dpkg will consider
> -	    "96May01" to be greater than "96Dec24".
> +	    numbers as the upstream sources.  However, upstream version
> +	    numbers based on some date formats (sometimes used for
> +	    development or "snapshot" releases) will not be ordered
> +	    correctly by the package management software.  For
> +	    example, <prng>dpkg</prng> will consider "96May01" to be
> +	    greater than "96Dec24".
>  	  </p>
>  
>  	  <p>
>  	    To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream
> -	    version, the date based portion of the version number
> -	    should be changed to the following format in such cases:
> -	    "19960501", "19961224". It is up to the maintainer whether
> -	    they want to bother the upstream maintainer to change
> -	    the version numbers upstream, too.
> -	  </p>
> -
> -	  <p>
> -	    Note that other version formats based on dates which are
> -	    parsed correctly by the package management system should
> -	    <em>not</em> be changed.
> +	    version, the date-based portion of any upstream version number
> +	    should be given in a way that sorts correctly: four-digit year
> +	    first, followed by a two-digit numeric month, followed by a
> +	    two-digit numeric date, possibly with punctuation between the
> +	    components.
>  	  </p>
>  
>  	  <p>
> -	    Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been
> -	    written especially for Debian) whose version numbers include
> -	    dates should always use the "YYYYMMDD" format.
> +	    Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
> +	    especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates
> +	    should also follow these rules.  If punctuation is desired
> +	    between the date components, remember that hyphen (<tt>-</tt>)
> +	    cannot be used in native package versions.  Period
> +	    (<tt>.</tt>) is normally a good choice.
>  	  </p>
>  	</sect1>

Seconded.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: