On 16 Dec 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> No, if we began to use Serial in that way we would end up with changing
> serial for many releases.. Serial is not clean and should be avoided each
> time this is possible.
No, I don't think so. Since 2 > 1, you can leave the serial at 2 if you
wanted. It doesn't have to be incremented like the release number, and
it's not really part of the version and wouldn't need to be listed. I
think it is *only* used because either a) RPM is braindead or b) the
software version numbers are braindead.
> This said, maybe 1.0c17 is older than plain 1.0 ? But as far as I can see
> on freshmeat for example (http://freshmeat.net/projects/BitchX), the
> author did not bother to follow an understandle naming scheme.
I think it is newer. BitchX has had an odd version scheme, e.g.
68 68a 68b 68d 75p1 75p2 75p3 1.0 1.0b 1.0c 1.0c11 1.0c17
These are some examples. It does seem a little hard to follow.
>
> Also, understanding that 1.0-0.c17 is effectively the 1.0c17 version is
> not so hard (provided the user is featured with a brain).
I understod that because I knew what the 'real' version was. But
1.0-0.c17-1mdk ... wait that's one too many dashes there isn't it? It's
confusing because is it the version number or release number. In this case
it is both.
--
Sincerely,
David Walluck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
