Hi Daniel, No problem, I'm glad you sorted it out. I will still try to change our version numbers, but now I do consider this to be a little bug ;-)
Kind regards, Steven On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 6:46 PM Daniel Krügler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 24.05.2021 um 18:25 schrieb Steven Huypens: > > Hi Daniel, > > If that's clearly stated, I'll try to have our version numbers changed. > Can you tell me where to find this statement ? I did try to look for it > myself, but couldn't find it. > > > Hi Steven, > > Good that you insisted me to double-check - I was wrong! I was mixing that > up with a different version specification where leading zeros where not > allowed, but I indeed couldn't find concrete evidence for leading zeros > being invalid in OSGi version. > > I apologize for the misleading comment and false statement, > > - Daniel > > > > Best regards, > Steven > > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:16 PM Daniel Krügler <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Am 24.05.2021 um 17:10 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofre: >> > Hi Steven, >> > >> > Yeah, the state should already contain the "cleaned" versions. >> > >> > I will take a look. >> > >> > Anyway, as best practice, I would avoid leading 0 ;) >> >> I completely agree and I don't understand why there should be additional >> work invested to "fix" that. The OSGi specification is clear that any >> leading zeros in version numbers are invalid. Anyone attempting to >> provide such a bundle should correct the version number and remove the >> leading zeros. >> >> - Daniel >> >> >
