On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:37PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > > wide scheme of things, because in Perl we have CPAN, and CPAN treats > > $VERSION as a floating point number, and does comparisons that way, and > > I think it would be a fine compromise to consider perl versions as > perl versions internal to CPAN and the program version for other usage > as the external version of the package. > > Knowing CPAN's problems and the current 2.01 SA as an example, I > myself would set the internal perl version to 2.01 and the external > version used for rpm and other package tools to 2.0.1 and call it > done. >
WTF? Why would we want to do that? Would that be sane? A) This system you propose has NO ADVANTAGES over merely naming versions 2.0, 2.01, 2.02, 2.1. B) It is going to confuse users, and after all, users are important. You seem to believe that RPMs and other package tools require versions of the form x.y.z. Although I know nothing about RPMs, I know Debian finds 2.01 as a perfectly acceptable version number. If Redhat or whomever implemented the RPM system insists on versions of the form x.y.z, (which is absurd, and almost certainly false) then they must be changing the version number of thousands of programs anyway. I vote for numbering such as 2.01. It works just great, why change it. -- Duncan Findlay _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
