Etienne Millon <etienne.mil...@gmail.com> writes: > * Felix Natter <fnat...@gmx.net> [130603 20:39]: >> => The question is: Can we use "29618" (or "svn29618" or "r29618") as >> the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to >> use "0.0+svn29618"? > > Hello,
Thanks for all the useful answers. > As others pointed you can use 29618 as a version number and add an > epoch when upstream switch to a "classic" scheme. > > There's also another way to do it, which is to use 0~29618 which > compares as less than 0. So, if upstream releases say 0.3, you can > switch to this version without bumping the epoch. That makes sense, and it's the way that Andrew Harvey already handles it for jmapviewer (but I didn't know why so I thought the "0.0" was obsolete) => so I will keep it this way (unless the JMapViewer folks happen to switch to real version numbers [1]) :-) > Personally I think this is better since you can release svn releases > or numbered releases (if any) at any moment without ever touching the > epoch. These versions are all in order: > > - 0~29618 > - 0~31293 > - 0.3 (first numbered release) > - 0.3+36932 > - 0.4 [1] real version numbers IMHO have the advantage that version gaps can be used to express incompatibility (i.e. jmapviewer 2.x is incompatible to jmapviewer 1.x). Thanks and Best Regards, -- Felix Natter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3m9karl....@bitburger.home.felix
