Having just re-read the section in the packaging manual, I note that dpkg does not chop version numbers by '.' but into non-numeric and numeric components [/usr/doc/dpkg/packaging.html/ch-versions.html].
On 22 Jun 1998 Yann Dirson wrote: > Proposals modifying current version-numbering scheme: > ===================================================== My favourite was: > Con: needs to modify dpkg... > > * Adding a new char (eg. '~') which would sort lower to anything, even > the empty string. > > Eg: 2.0~b1 << 2.0 > > Pro: this can be presented to the user with the ~ removed, thus > showing the real upstream version string. > > Con: will have problems with the following release sequence: > > 1.0pre1 => 1.0~pre1 > 1.0beta1 => ??? > 1.0 => 1.0 > > although, if it known in advance that there will be "beta" following > "pre", we can use: > > 1.0pre1 => 1.0~~pre1 > 1.0beta1 => 1.0~beta1 > 1.0 => 1.0 > > Submitter: Gregory S. Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would have thought that alpha < beta < gamma < pre (< rel) order nicely by themselves and if this is true in practice then you don't need the ~~ trick. I also don't see any need to hide ~ from the admin. Here is my suggestion (has it been put forward before?): A (logical?) alternative is to have ~ (or whatever) be "negation": ~n meaning (-n) (n is [0-9]\+) ~ aliased to (-1) (or -0? -1/2?) (~ not followed by numeral) It starts a new numerical component wherever it appears. This gives: 1.0~alpha1 1.0~beta1 which is just the same as Gregory's suggestion, but has an extra Pro for those people who like negative numbers in their version strings: 1.0~2 (alpha test) 1.0~1 (beta test) 1.0 (release) ((Alternative alternative: someone might want to order: 1.-c, 1.-b, 1.-a, 1, 1.a, 1.b, 1.c in which case "~" would also negate non-numerical components and you would need: 1.0~.alpha1 1.0~.beta1 to get the right ordering.)) > * Using epoch subversions, with "1-3:7.8.9" meaning the epoch only > overrides the 3rd point-level of the version (the "9" in "1-3:7.8.9"). > * Generalized from Adam's numbering scheme, another approach would be > to extend epochs [snip] IMHO, epochs are really only needed to deal with mistakes in versioning and it is probably worth extending them so that they can apply to subcomponents (the advantage here is that a subepoch reflects more accurately the versioning problem and, as soon as a more major version change occurs, the subepoch can be discarded). Epochs help after versioning breakage. Negative components would help before in the alpha/beta cases. Giuliano Procida. -- mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | public PGP key ID: 93898735 home: +44 1223 561237 / 547 Newmarket Road, Cambridge CB5 8PA, UK work: +44 1223 332127 / Magdalene College, Cambridge CB3 0AG, UK work: +44 1223 335333 / International Studies, Cambridge CB2 1QY, UK -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
