2009/11/28 Laura Creighton <[email protected]>: > In a message of Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:27:14 +0100, Tarek Ziadé writes: >>On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Laura Creighton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> It occurs to me that this problem would go away if we had a way to >>> ask, for any given version number, 'what was your creation date' and >>> the sorting 'earlier' and 'later' by that date. Can somebody explain >>> why we aren't doing this? >> >>You mean like a timestamp before or after the version ? >> >>I might be wrong but I think that would be similar to what RPM calls >>an Epoch. A number that can be used to compare two packages when their >>versions number don't follow the standard scheme anymore. But that's >>just a fallback. >>But for the sake of simplicity and standardization, this extra number >>is avoided. >> >>Meaning that it would be better to define and use a standard for the >>released packages, than introducing a timestamp and say: do whatever >>you want with your version numbers. > > But I think that it is the other way around ... what we want is a > timestamp. The algorithm is for guessing which version is ealier > in the absence of a timestamp. > >>At some point, we all agree that MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO is an accepted >>standard and we are arguing about pre/post/dev releases. > > We have no way to enforce this on the world.
Actually, there is: refuse any packages on pypi which does not follow the standard. In exchange of using the standard (whatever it ends up being), you can use pypi. David _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
