I wrote: > The leading zero is clearly intended to imply a decimal point.
Julian Gilbey writes: > Erm, by extension, we would have 1.11 < 1.2 if the "." is interpreted as > a decimal point, but 1.11 > 1.2 if it is a major/minor separator. I said nothing about interpreting the '.' as a decimal point. > So what will you do when the upstream authors then have version 1.11, > 1.12 followed by version 1.2? There is no leading zero here to help. No leading zero, therefor no implied decimal point. No problem. > But *don't* try changing dpkg on this one. I have no intention whatsoever of attempting to change dpkg in any way. > Alternatives have been suggested, such as using a version number of 1.10, > especially as this is being interpreted as a decimal point, so 1.1 and > 1.10 are the same numerically! But it isn't, and they aren't. It looks as if the consensus is that this is what I have to do anyway, though. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI