Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[email protected]> writes: > On Aug 24, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > >> The mapping can probably be the identity in many cases, however. If >> there is no "natural" mapping, we could use <year>.<month>.<n>, or >> <year>.<month>.<day>. A problem might be if there *is* a natural >> (e.g. identity) mapping, but there are packages available from $VCS >> as a >> well. This complicates things -- you have to be careful so that the >> version order relationship is kept. I can not see how to solve this >> issue without resorting to a (slightly?)) more complicated versioning >> scheme. > > A slightly more complex scheme can be dash-separated list of versions > each of which is a dot-separated list of numbers (e.g., 12.3.4-0.1). > So, you can use <year>.<month>.<day>-<rev> or even > <relyear>.<relmonth>.<relday>-<revyear>.<revmonth>.<revday>. > > [...]
Fine proposal -- this buys us the most of the benefits of Debian's (relatively complex) versioning without all the hair. >> In the general case, yes. Upstream might have an insane numbering >> scheme, but I think this is an exception, and most upstream release >> numbers can be used with little or no mangling, if you relax the rules >> for version numbers a bit (as Debian does). > > I think they would still be used with little or no mangling anyways > (since the upstream packages are, for the most part, noninexistent > yet :-)) > Yes, there's just a few of them ATM, but hopefully that will change :-). Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
