On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Peter Bonivart <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > Looking at what's written now at > http://www.opencsw.org/extend-it/contribute-packages/build-standards/#versioning, > I think it should be allowed (but not to be used unless needed) for > more numeric fields than YYYY.MM.DD since that makes it easy to make a > package the same day that distinguishes itself from the other one by > using, e.g., YYYY.MM.DD.HH.mm. Pkgutil processes any number of these > fields until one package "wins". I don't know if you do but it's a > suggestion.
It is what I have always presumed, and have suggested to folks when needed. Rather than make an explicit "hh.mm" thing, I think it's more than adequate to have YYYY.MM.DD.seqnum We only need a max of 4 fields there for full disambiguation. > > I also think we should make it clear that the version string is now in > three parts where the middle one is optional, the content of it should > be from a fixed list which from the start should contain "p" for > patched. Something like this: > > 1.2.3[,x],REV=YYYY.MM.DD[.xx] > > What do you think? Works for me. Although we should probably make some other recommendations in the writeup such as: - keep the optional field as short as possible. - it is preferred to NOT be present, unless neccessary - current neccessary uses are: ",p", which denotes a feature patch applied by the maintainer. See README for details. Other uses should be discussed on the maintainers list. .. oh I guess we can formalise also, ",sparconly" and ",i386only" Lets avoid people creating 1.2.3,ithinkthisisokaybuttryitandletmeknowmkay,REV=YYYY.MM.DD _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
