On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:16:50PM -0600, Evan Layton wrote: > >Also, nothing is given the version 5.11 except for the build version, which > >isn't really useful at the moment. Remember, the versioning schema is: > > > > release,build-branch:timestamp > > > >and what you primarily care about are release and branch components of > >the version. You should use those terms consistently. "Major release" > >doesn't mean anything in the context you're using it in. The release > >component isn't intended to match the version of the OS, but the version > >of the software component in that package. Which may in fact have the > >same version as that of the OS (how else would you version the core > >kernel package, for instance), but many other packages will eventually > >have independent version numbers. The branch component may not always > >correspond to the build number. > > I should have used release instead of "Major release". I'll remove these... > > Shouldn't the release number for the version of the package be > checked for each of these packages and won't this be expected to > match? If a package has been updated within a release then only the > build-branch will have changed.
"build-branch" is two components separated by a dash. It's the "build" component of the version that isn't especially useful at the moment, as it's hard-coded everywhere to "5.11". > Since we're checking all of the packages and the release number is > part of the version string why wouldn't we chekc that as part of the > version checking? You certainly should be checking release and branch. Checking build should be fine, if unnecessary. Danek