This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Question about clisp version naming


On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 20:27 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
> >> Version numbers like the one Ken has proposed are becoming common in
> >> Linux distributions, so we'd rather check that setup handles them
> >> correctly.  I think Jari already uses a bunch of them.  The thing here
> >> is that for all versioning schemes that use hashes you need to prepend
> >> an ISO date so things sort correctly, but I'd rather not append this to
> >> the release number, so I'd suggest VERSION=2.49+YYYYMMDDhg15623 instead.
> >> Also, I don't think it's a good idea to allow "."  in the release
> >> number.  Alphas already work in that place (I use that for snapshots
> >> since years) and are a lot less ambigous if you try to parse the release
> >> out of a file name.
> >
> > Sorry, but Yaakov says we already allow dots in the release number,
> > and he's the distro czar.  So I'm going with his suggestion.
> 
> As you wish.  I still think his view is somewhat unique looking at the
> version numbers in several Linux distros that provide packages
> in-between-official-releases from several VCS.  The only case that I
> know where the VCS revision tag was used in the relase part of the
> version string was when the release was made from a local branch in all
> other cases they'd been appended to the latest release version string.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning

Except we don't (yet) have Epoch (PTC).

--
Yaakov



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]