On 01/05/2013 05:20 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On 5 Jan 2013, at 7:52am, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2013-1-5 10:15 , Blair Zajac wrote:
I got some feedback from the Munki people [1] and it honors any number
of integers in a version number, so to ensure that packages and
metapackages will support epoch without issue, I put in the epoch number
into the generated filenames and internal version number.
Hm, I don't think it's always desired to have the epoch in the filename,
e.g. for base releases. Maybe the epoch and revision could be left out
when they are 0?
That would cause problems if the epoch for a package is ever increased from 0
to 1, since the version number would change unpredictably.
e.g. say you have a package with version 3.2.1 epoch 0, revision 0, so if you
missed out the epoch when zero, this would give the 'munki' version
3.2.1.0
say you then increase the epoch to 1 (to downgrade to 3.2.0). the version then
would be
1.3.2.0.0
which is a completely different format to the first, and not obvious if it
would be seen as newer or not. My guess not.
Agreed, this would not be seen by Munki as a newer version, but an older
one. Given this and that we would always want to the file version
number with the internal version number (say to make scripts easier to
write), suggests that we keep the epoch there.
Blair
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
