On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 09:44:46PM +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 26 Jun 2008, at 21:09, Danek Duvall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 09:03:08PM +0100, Chris Ridd wrote: > >> Where's my leading zero gone? > > > > Each number between the dots (new fortune cookie reading?) is > > treated as an integer, so leading zeros are dropped. > > That seems like it might be a bit too simplistic, but maybe having a > leading zero inside a version string is asking for trouble anyway.
Lots of projects use non-digit characters in version numbers (e.g., ksh93!). Treating version numbers as major.minor.micro where each is an integer is asking for trouble. OTOH, this is _package_ version numbers we're talking about (right?), not the version numbers of the packaged software. So I think dropping these leading zeros is not exactly a mistake, but, it will lead to confusion in some cases. > > We've talked about having a "human readable" version that can be an > > attribute on a package, which would allow for letters and other fun > > things in a displayed version, but you'd only see that in "pkg > > info", and not in any fmri display. > > It is also quite important to be able to compare the versions of two > packages for ordering purposes. Right, which is why forcing package numbers to be numeric is a good idea. Though perhaps ordering could be specified in the manifests, rather than be implied by pkg version numbers -- but that'd be just one more little thing to trip up developers with. Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
