In foo.debian-mentors, you wrote: > James Mastros writes: > > Package it as version 1:1.1; next time package as 1:2.0.2, which will > > give the ordering you're looking for. (The 1: is an "era"; it won't > > normaly get displayed. Made for just this sort of thing.) > > It's an "epoch", I believe. I know about epochs, but I've never seen > anyone suggest using them without meeting with cries of outrage. Thus I > would like to avoid them if at all possible. > > I am also just a bit astonished by the notion that 1.1 < 1.02.
Which is greater? 2.1.24 or 2.1.107 If 2.1.107 < 2.1.24, then you have an ascii sort. If 2.1.24 < 2.1.107, then you have a numerical sort. It seems that dpkg is doing a numerical sort, which I don't find that unreasonable. Consider the Linux kernal versioning (which this example is taken from). Digit placement, (such as that used in 1.02) should not be used in a versioning scheme, because it places predetermined limits on the number of revisions that can happen within a given level. Instead, dots (.) should be used to separate revision levels, and leading zeros within a level should be ignored within a numerical field. -Mitch
