On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:12:20 -0500 Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> That could interfere with versions like 1.6.2.1 that sometimes occur. > Conceptually I could imagine something like maybe 1.6.2.0.120917, but I > don't remember what all the various version rules are for deb and rpm. > And I don't think OS X can handle more than a certain number of version > segments, or something? i think a version number like 1.6.2.1 is mostly insane. there arent enough releases of openafs to just not use 1.6.3. on os x, i believe you are limited to x.y.z mostly. from the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning: Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0___255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final. In writing these version numbers as strings, the convention is to omit any parts after the minor version whose value are zero (with "final" being considered the zero stage), thus writing 1.0.2b12, 1.0.2 (rather than 1.0.2f0), and 1.1 (rather than 1.1.0f0). so this would make using the date as the 'build' version somewhat difficult on os x. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
