Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi, >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marco> What about 960501? It's shorter. Marco> (This format has NO Y2K problems.) >> >> Really? When is 010501? Guy> That version would be written as 20010501. Marco was just pointing G

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

* Md => Marco d'Itri Md> What about 960501? It's shorter. (This format has NO Y2K Md> problems.) I'd bet 000501 is earlier to dpkg than 990501. ;-) Regards, -- Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr] -

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Marco> What about 960501? It's shorter. > Marco> (This format has NO Y2K problems.) > > Really? When is 010501? That version would be written as 20010501. Marco was just pointing out that abbreviating 19xx as xx doesn't always cause y2k pr

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > At least we agree about new packages ;-) About older packages, > I am not sure. I think a single epoch, followed by sane dates, would > not really confuse people, and limit things to just one epoch, and > that having consistent date-formatted names is a big enough

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi >>"Marco" == Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marco> On Oct 30, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the >> version number should be changed to the following format in such >> cases: `1996-05-01', `1996-12-24'

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

> To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the > version number should be changed to the following format in such > cases: `19960501', `19961224'. ... > I am now looking for seconds for this proposal. Seconded. David -- David Frey (B98D36A9) = 51F359231

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

On Oct 30, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the > version number should be changed to the following format in such > cases: `1996-05-01', `1996-12-24'. It is up to the maintainer whether What about 960501?

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Because in this case the version number conveys something >> beyond just a mere number: and consistency in nomenclature helps >> developers, and users, to decipher the version. Joey> Please bear in mind tha

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

> On 01 Nov 1998 02:25:47 -600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates I second this. -- Joel Rosdahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PGP-key available via finger and WWW) http://rosdahl.ml.org/joel/

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Because in this case the version number conveys something > beyond just a mere number: and consistency in nomenclature helps > developers, and users, to decipher the version. Please bear in mind that most people who run into a version number that has been changed

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> Do you claim that our version numbers are in general consitent? No but that is no reason that date based versions should not be consistent. Joey> Why try to add consitency to this little corner of the version Joey> number spa

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a > date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these > version numbers currently, without epochs. For example, dpkg will > consider `96May01' to be greater than `

Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

[PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates - Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> $Revision: 1.4 $ Copyright Notice Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastav

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Just because one package has been lucky so far is not grouds > for not changing a broken scheme. That was en example of why this policy is often unneccessary. > Joey> If a new version comes out in 2 days, of course, it will not > Joey> version compare correctly,

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joey> I prefer to take a "don't fix it until it breaks" approach. You r approach below, with all due respect, is already broken as a policy proposal. We need to be general, and consistent, with the numbering scheme when we talk about

Re: Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written >> especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should >> always use the `-MM-DD' format. James> Th

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Hi, >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> [ I would suggest to make "MMDD" the recommended choice Santiago> in this case,points are not allowed in ISO dates, only Santiago> hyphens or nothing, I think ]. Fine by me A new proposal coming up.. >> I am

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written > especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should > always use the `-MM-DD' format. That's a stunningly bad idea. From Chapter 5 of the Packaging ma

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

On 30 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written > especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should > always use the `-MM-DD' format. James Troup pointed out some time ago that this probably breaks another

Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2.1. Change > --- > > In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the > upstream sources. > > However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a > date (e.g., a development `sna

Re: Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

Manoj Srivastava wrote: > In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the > upstream sources. > > However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a > date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these > versi

Bug#17621: [PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates

[PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates - Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> $Revision: 1.2 $ Copyright Notice Copyright © 1998 by Manoj Srivastav