Hi Milan,
On 02/07/2024 23:54, Milan Kupcevic wrote:
On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...]
Hi Alec,
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The
upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-beta3 so this ordering
is, although a bit strange, still ok.
However, a quite large user base have PPA packages installed. These
have versions like 8767+b2cbf5a3f~ubuntu24.04.1. The prefix is a build
number, so they are ordered. but all these versions are higher than
anything like 5.9.x.
[...]
The upstream shall consider adopting 5 digit release version numbering
without dots/periods. E.g. 50903 would mean version 5, major 09, minor
03. Thus you would go with package version numbering 50903-1 or
50903+dfsg0-1 as the case might be.
The upstream "shall" not do anything, they are open for discussions but
certainly not for dictates.
If you are able to sell this idea to upstream it would certainly work. I
would not try it, it would generate a lot of friction to no use. And at
least I would fail to convince upstream. The user community is used to a
certain version scheme and if using the Debian package requires such an
odd version the Debian package will probably not be used.
The proposed version also does not even resemble the ubiquitous semver
specifications which actually are more or less followed now. Seems like
a wrong move just to avoid the epoch.
Again, Russ Allbery's post [1] describes these kind of considerations.
IMHO they apply also to this idea.
Cheers!
--alec
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/07/msg00029.html
