On Wednesday, 02 June 2004, at 01:42:39 (-0700),
Ben Rockwood wrote:
> I'll just toss in that personally, I prefer the traditional -pre
> tags (enlightenment-0.16.7-pre3.tar.gz) as apposed to subversioning.
> It seems too easy for someone unaware of the versioning scheme to
> mistake a pre as a full release, and it's unrealistic to expect that
> they'll just know. The old naming convention never caused problems
> for me, or in packaging using tardist (IRIX), PKG (Solaris) or SD-UX
> (HP-UX), but then I don't use the Really Pathetic Manager.
I refuse to get caught up in this ignorance-driven flame war again.
My goal is simply to eliminate ambiguity in a very obvious way. For
example, if you have "0.16.7a," is that older than 0.16.7 ('a' for
"alpha" perhaps) or newer than 0.16.7 (patch release, a la Samba)?
All too often, developers create packaging hassles by doing stupid
things with version numbers. The perl 5.005 fiasco comes to mind.
While the "Epoch" mechanism can be used to overcome it, portability is
greatly reduced across packaging platforms. The best solution across
the board is to use a well-established mechanism (i.e., numbers and
dots where each number is numerically ordered).
Michael
--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"And always remember the last words of my grandfather, who said,
'Sh*t! A truck!' " -- Emo Phillips
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X.
>From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one
installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and
evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
