(what an old bug ;))

Russ Allbery <[email protected]> (16/07/2010):
> Here's a proposal that tries to implement that.  Objections or seconds?
> 
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index ec1acee..acef23b 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -849,36 +849,30 @@
>  
>         <p>
>           In general, Debian packages should use the same version
> -         numbers as the upstream sources.
> -       </p>
> -
> -       <p>
> -         However, in some cases where the upstream version number is
> -         based on a date (e.g., a development "snapshot" release) the
> -         package management system cannot handle these version
> -         numbers without epochs. For example, dpkg will consider
> -         "96May01" to be greater than "96Dec24".
> +         numbers as the upstream sources.  However, upstream version
> +         numbers based on some date formats (sometimes used for
> +         development or "snapshot" releases) will not be ordered
> +         correctly by the package management software.  For
> +         example, <prng>dpkg</prng> will consider "96May01" to be
> +         greater than "96Dec24".
>         </p>
>  
>         <p>
>           To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream
> -         version, the date based portion of the version number
> -         should be changed to the following format in such cases:
> -         "19960501", "19961224". It is up to the maintainer whether
> -         they want to bother the upstream maintainer to change
> -         the version numbers upstream, too.
> -       </p>
> -
> -       <p>
> -         Note that other version formats based on dates which are
> -         parsed correctly by the package management system should
> -         <em>not</em> be changed.
> +         version, the date-based portion of any upstream version number
> +         should be given in a way that sorts correctly: four-digit year
> +         first, followed by a two-digit numeric month, followed by a
> +         two-digit numeric date, possibly with punctuation between the
> +         components.
>         </p>
>  
>         <p>
> -         Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been
> -         written especially for Debian) whose version numbers include
> -         dates should always use the "YYYYMMDD" format.
> +         Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
> +         especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates
> +         should also follow these rules.  If punctuation is desired
> +         between the date components, remember that hyphen (<tt>-</tt>)
> +         cannot be used in native package versions.  Period
> +         (<tt>.</tt>) is normally a good choice.
>         </p>
>       </sect1>

Seconded.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to