> 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.
Yes a perfectly acceptable version number. But which version is the later, 2.01 or 2.1? > 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. They do not. You can call the version number of an rpm or deb anything including "herman" if you want. But if you want it to upgrade smoothly then it needs to be something that the package tool can tell is newer or older. Otherwise you might find yourself installing a newer package that the tool thinks is an older and having it block you trying to prevent you from upgrading to an older version. Usually in that case you need special handling to clean up the mess. > I vote for numbering such as 2.01. It works just great, why change it. And if it doesn't work? :-) Bob P.S. I have expended more energy on this topic than it warrants. I am bowing out unless something fresh appears. We can all just agree to disagree until then. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
