+++ Jonathan Nieder [2013-05-07 16:14 -0700]: > It makes sense for Debian, too. Epochs were invented to handle > changes to the version numbering *scheme*. They work well for that.
This is true. It would be good advice somewhere to sugest that if using a date-based packaging scheme, to prefix it with 0. i.e 0.20130215 I packaged something a while back that had no scheme so used a date string: 20110812 as this was suggested somewhere. Now they have done a release and called it 0.6, I realise that 20110812 (20 million) is a lot bigger than 0.6, or indeed any other likely version number. epoch time :-( Not a big deal but could so easily have been avoided. Now I just need to find that original packaging advice and add this little gem of knowledge. > The "really" trick works better for temporary decreases in version > number, and the conspicuousness is actually a good thing imho. > > Hope that helps, It does, thank you. I had not properly understood the above before. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130508142551.gm2...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
