discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961)
Garance A Drosihn
drosih at rpi.edu
Thu May 6 13:58:04 PDT 2004
At 2:07 PM -0500 5/6/04, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 10:22:42AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> > I *would* like to see the package versioning rules made more clear
> > and explicit, and perhaps even see some reform. However, making
> > up a new special case for `pl' seems right out.
> > Has much discussion over PR 56961 taken place anywhere? I like
> > it as a starting point.
>Is anyone besides Oliver and myself interested in package version
>number reform? I'd really like to produce a `better' set of rules
>for the handbook that eliminates some of the edge cases, and then
>re-version the relatively few ports that don't fit the rules.
>Oliver's PR is as good a starting point as any that I've seen--- it
>goes further than our current rules and only conflicts with them in
I have thought from time-to-time that the version-numbering
scheme seems a bit hard to follow for some ports. I don't
know if the PR does exactly what I want. The rule of:
- characters !~ [a-zA-z0-9.] are treated as separators
(1.0+2003.09.16 = 1.0.2003.09.16). This may not be
what you expect: 1.0.1+2003.09.16 < 1.0+2003.09.16
seems like it would cause confusion, for instance. I don't
know exactly what would be a better tactic, though.
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih at rpi.edu
More information about the cvs-all