On Oct 30, 2009, at 12:44, Juha Kallioinen wrote: > ext Niels Breet wrote: >> On Thu, October 29, 2009 09:01, Martin Grimme wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> hmm, what's so bad about a simple date for a version number? >>> Ubuntu does >>> it, (Open)Solaris does it, and I started doing it, too, because I >>> found it >>> less confusing than having version numbers such as e.g. 0.96.5. >> >> Sane version numbers should at least not look like this: >> 2.0.0+cvs20040908+mp4v2+bmp-0ubuntu6maemo1 >> >> And yes, this is an actual package version number ;) > > And a perfectly good one too! :)
I don't agree. :P > It's useful not to change the upstream > package version too much so that it's easier to see that a package > could use > updating. But in this case it has both the ubuntu and maemo strings. The policy says that you use the 'maemo' string only if you have modified the package in some way for maemo, is this the case with that package? Or is in modified for ubuntu? Or is it modified for maemo and the ubuntu modifications have been kept? Furthermore what is 'bmp' and how is that helpful? What is mp4v2? And how is that helpful? And why have both a version number _and_ a version control system number? Perhaps use one or the other. > > The problem is imho the Application manager, not the version numbers. > > What's the point of even displaying the version number in the > Application > manager's default view? I personally don't care about the version at > all and > I certainly won't remember if an application's version has been > updated by > looking at the list view. Am I alone with this opinion? Why do you > need to > see the version there? The update manager will gladly tell me if I > have an > older version installed and if I don't, won't I just install > whatever the > Application manager offers me? Good points, but Ryan's original point is still valid and these issues also affect any place you have to use version numbers, not just the Application Manager. The string that Niels posted could be shortened to: 2.0.0-6maemo1 This leaves you with the version number of the upstream source, the version of upstream packaging, and the maemo packaged version. Here you have all the trackability you need with simplicity. I think the original request is a good one and developers/maintainers ought to consider revising their version strings for clarity. Jeremiah _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
