On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:10:05PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Tres Seaver <[email protected]> writes: > > > -1: "practicality beats purity" here: there is *no* case in which an > > alpha version should *ever* sort after the final release with the > > corresponding number. If we specify the "simple pure" scheme you > > propose, nobody will use it, period. > > Well then, I don't see a way forward on the issue of helping > distributors to manage version numbers sanely. I don't know of any > operating system package manager that returns different comparison > results depending on what specific letters are used in the version > string. > > All this specialness-of-certain-letters may make sense to Python core > developers, but it's just going to result in nonsensical version > progressions as far as operating system distributors are concerned. What > will be the resolution there?
Alpha, beta and release candidate releases have been around for ages and I imagine most distributors have figured out a way of coping with this. In Debian's case 1.0a1 would become 1.0~a1 for example (IIRC), which sorts before 1.0. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
