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

Reply via email to