On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:49 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > On 2008 Sep 10, at 6:48, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 10. September 2008 11:47 schrieben Sie: > >> So we should think about how to make it less confusing. Perhaps like > >> distributors use an extra revision number we should do the same. > > > > Yes, maybe this is the way to go. > > > Everyone who manages packages runs into this, and all of them use > revision numbers like this. (.rN for gentoo was already mentioned; > BSD ports and MacPorts use _, RPM uses -. Depot collections at CMU > also use -.) > > And while we're on that topic, most of them also have an "epoch" which > overrides the version number. If for some reason an updated package > *doesn't* change the version, or goes backwards (because of a major > bug leading to backing off the new release), you increase the epoch so > dependent packages don't get confused when it's re-released. If we're > considering modifying hackage's versioning, we should probably decide > if we want/need this now instead of having to add it in later when > something major goes *boom*.
We've thought about this and we think we do not need epoch numbers since we're in the lucky position of doing the upstream versioning. http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/135 Hmm, I think the discussion on that ticket must have been in an email thread in cabal-devel. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
