Xavier wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering >> >> Here is my vote for the best order: >> 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c >> >> > > I think I just restored the old behavior, what we had before is : > 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0c < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 > > And as far as I can see, it never caused problems to openssh. > Both old and new behaviors worked fine with it, because we always had : > 4.3p1 < 4.3p2 < 4.4p1 > > According to the cvs history : > http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/core/support/openssh/PKGBUILD?root=core&view=log > and the source archives : > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/ > the scheme was always X.Y[.Z]pN . > >
Yeah, poor example... In the v1.2ish era they went 1.2 -> 12.p2 -> 1.2p3 but that was a while ago... A better example is samba :) > Now, maybe 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < > 1.0c would be better, but we never had this behavior, and implementing > would be (much?) more complex than what we have now. > I was really trying to point out that you can't satisfy everyone... But maybe that order is quite good although it would be quite complex. Allan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
