Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Krzysztof Krzyżaniak wrote:
>> Derek Poon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Please be consistent with the number of digits in the versioning
>>> scheme. While it may be easy for humans to guess that 5.7001 comes
>>> before 5.80, packaging tools like RPM and APT could easily get
>>> confused. While such problems could be worked around by using tricks
>>> like epoch numbers, it would be best to avoid the headache altogether
>>> with a sane versioning scheme.
>>>
>>> Derek
>>
>> It's packagers problem, I know. I am changing in debian package to
>> 'normal' version scheme. But then debian/watch doesn't work. But this is
>> really minor problem.
>
> Define "normal" ?
for example: first 5.6902, then 5.70_1 then 5.70. From debian point of
view 5.70 is before 5.6902, 5.70_1 is invalid (so probably should be
changed to 5.70.01 but then it's after 5.70 so probably should be changed
into 5.69-5.70pre1 etc.). But this is minor problem, it's only make
automatic tools blind but always can be changed manualy.
> The next production release will be 5.7000 - what's the problem with that?
But will be tar.gz named Catalyst-Runtime-5.70.tar.gz or
Catalyst-Runtime-5.7000.tar.gz? It makes difference with automatic
upgradind tools.
eloy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
jak to dobrze, że są oceany - bez nich byłoby jeszcze smutniej
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
