Danek Duvall wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:16:50PM -0600, Evan Layton wrote: > >>> Also, nothing is given the version 5.11 except for the build version, which >>> isn't really useful at the moment. Remember, the versioning schema is: >>> >>> release,build-branch:timestamp >>> >>> and what you primarily care about are release and branch components of >>> the version. You should use those terms consistently. "Major release" >>> doesn't mean anything in the context you're using it in. The release >>> component isn't intended to match the version of the OS, but the version >>> of the software component in that package. Which may in fact have the >>> same version as that of the OS (how else would you version the core >>> kernel package, for instance), but many other packages will eventually >>> have independent version numbers. The branch component may not always >>> correspond to the build number. >> I should have used release instead of "Major release". I'll remove these... >> >> Shouldn't the release number for the version of the package be >> checked for each of these packages and won't this be expected to >> match? If a package has been updated within a release then only the >> build-branch will have changed. > > "build-branch" is two components separated by a dash.
Right, it's just the branch component that may have changed at this point. > It's the "build" > component of the version that isn't especially useful at the moment, as > it's hard-coded everywhere to "5.11". > >> Since we're checking all of the packages and the release number is >> part of the version string why wouldn't we chekc that as part of the >> version checking? > > You certainly should be checking release and branch. Checking build should > be fine, if unnecessary. It's unnecessary right now but we want to be checking it since that may become more interesting in the future. -evan
