> > There were two points I was trying to make. One is that the format > "1.4+1.5beta3-1" is superior to your proposed "short" version > "1.4-1+beta3", which looks like trouble. well good point again, I should have been not very carefully, in fact, I was proposing something like 1.4+beta3-1 (misplaced the revision sorry) wich is shorter, but in fact, after some (very intense ;p) thought time, in fact, the convention you propose is much better. maybe it should be an advice given in the policyt ?
> The other is that it would be > best to switch to this format before entering the archive. I just want > to make sure you haven't overlooked the former. For this part, I repeat that I worked with preversion of my package that had the (not smart) version scheme : 1.0-beta(x)-(rev) and what I find bad is that people that were using it, will have to force dpkg to do the upgrade since 0.99+1.0beta4-1 < 1.0-beta4-1 and I find it's sad ... I would agree immediately if my scheme wasn't policy compliant, but since it's not the fact, is that really something that should change ? Well if everybody think the actual thing is _that_ bad, well, I don't want argue for something stupid like that, but well, maybe it would be great not to make the users life harder for nothing ? -- Pierre Habouzit http://www.madism.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
