Manoj Srivastava wrote: > However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a > date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these > version numbers currently, without epochs. For example, dpkg will > consider `96May01' to be greater than `96Dec24'. > > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the > version number should be changed to the following format in such > cases: `19960501', `19961224'. It is up to the maintainer whether > he/she wants to bother the upstream maintainer to change the version > numbers upstream, too. > > Note, that other version formats based on dates which are parsed > correctly by dpkg should _NOT_ be changed.
On re-reading this, I have no problem with the proposal. Lambdacore's version numbers, strange as they are, are currently "dates which are parsed correctly by dpkg" (though this occurs completly by chance; dpkg happens to order them correctly), so lambdcore or other packages with similar versions do not need to be changed unless a new upstream version breaks that. This seems in-line with what the proposed amendment is saying, though I wish it said it more explictly. -- see shy jo
