Re: Mirrors et al.
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Why not have version numbers like: 960429, 960615, 960722 etc.
So just change the way the version numbers are chosen, it's an idea... but:
> CD manufactures want version numbers? Fine, they can have them. YYMMDD
> of whatever day they cut the CD. YYMMDD is the only date format that
> sorts properly...so I use it for everything.
But then are you running Yggdrasil's 960429, or PHT's? The standard version
number is for clarity, and to say that at this point those packages worked
together well, and most of the bugs were gone (bugs fixes are in the
patches directory). I think the YYMMDD idea might be good, but it'd have
to be a day set by Debian, not the CD makers.
> case? If I call for tech support, the support guy should ask 'what
> version of package foobar do you have installed?' rather than 'what
> version of debian do you have?'
This is an issue for tech support, though I agree that's what they should
do. Because Debian is made to upgrade, they should expect that you'll
have upgraded. The package version's should be emphasised more than the
distribution version.
> this is one of the features of the dpkg software - we should promote it
> as such.
Definitly.
> (another feature of YYMMDD version numbers...slackware, redhat, et
> al will never catch up. we'll always have a higher version number.
> hahahahah. what's a puny version three to version ninety-six thousand??
> nothing! no, i'm not being at all serious with this comment :-)
I think this is the best reason of all :)
-- Run.exe
First Law of the Universe:
No law applies to ALL of the Universe
runexe@ntplx.net http://www.ntplx.net/~runexe/ Finger me for PGP key
Reply to: