Bug#542288: Version numbering: native packages, NMU's, and binary only uploads
Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:40:07PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
>
> > > I believe it should also document the N.N standard for
> > > NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to
> > > +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so.
>
> I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just rather
> strange that two different schemes/standards are in play here. As a
> temporary transition, the wording could say non-native nmus can be
> versioned with either +nmun or n.n with +nmun favored as that will
> become the standard in the future.
Hello Michael and everybody,
I am not opposed to this. Are there other opinions on the matter ? If yes, I
can propose a revised patch. Otherwise, I think that I will tag this bug
‘patch‘ and call for seconds with the current wording, because even if there is
consensus that +nmun for non-native packages would be better in the future, I
am not sure if parsers for version numbers that work with n.n are able to
detect +nmun correctly…
Or how about a footnote to suggest to people writing parsers that they make
sure they are compatible with the current practice, n.n, plus with +nmun just
in case of a future standardisation ?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: