I've just received a bug report about this discussion, wherein the proposed text is as shown here:
> In general, Debian packages should use the same version numbers as the > upstream sources. > > However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a > date (i.e., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these > version numbers currently, without epochs. For example, dpkg will > consider `96May01' to be greater than `96Dec24'. > > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the > version number should be changed to the following format in such > cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-24', and starting with the year 2000 > `2000-12-24'. It is up to the maintainer whether he/she wants to > bother the upstream maintainer to change the version numbers upstream, > too. > > Note, that other version formats based on dates which are parsed > correctly by dpkg should _NOT_ be changed. > > Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written > especially for Debian) should always use the `YYYY-MM-DD' format. I think that we should use this text with the following modifications: 1. Change `i.e.' to `e.g.' in para.2, line 2. (Typo/error.) 2. Change `96' to `1996' and delete `and starting with the year 2000' in para.3. This will avoid silly questions about Y2K, and is clearer and more consistent. 3. Add `whose version numbers include dates' before `should always' in para.5, line 2. (Clarification that this is not intented to deprecate packages with non-date version numbers.) Ian.
