On Thu 26 Jun 2008 at 05:23PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:12:53PM -0700, Dan Price wrote:
> > On Thu 26 Jun 2008 at 05:01PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > One good reason to separate pkg and software version numbers is that you
> > > might make changes to a package without changing the packaged software
> > > at all. Then, if your intention had been to have the pkg version number
> > > mimic the packaged software's, how would you encode such a change into
> > > the package's version number??
> >
> > You'd republish the package with a newer timestamp.
>
> Like SVR4 packaging's PSTAMP? I don't think that's a good idea. But
Can you cite a single reason why this mechanism, which is working
perfectly fine, and which we're already using, is not acceptable?
> quite apart from that, if pkg version numbers be constrained to integer
> tuples then I think we'll be better off having pkg version numbers bear
> no resemblance to the packaged software's version numbers. I strongly
> recommend that; alternatively, make pkg version numbers strings (but I
> agree, implicit numeric ordering has desirable properties).
Feel free to make a concrete proposal by getting involved and working on
the code. As it stands now, you're describing a project other than this
one.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
