-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I agree that the proposed text is better than nothing, but it is still too
weak.
Even if we keep upstream source numbers untouched, it would be a good
thing to encourage upstream authors to use -MM-DD because it
is an ISO standard for dates.
Therefore we sh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>:
>
> > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> > the version number should be changed to the following format in
> > such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-24', and starting with t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 13.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> the version number should be changed to the following format in
> such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-24', and starting with the year
>
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 07:13:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> No, dpkg gets this right -- it compares numerically, not textually, if
> it can:
Oh yes, I knew that really :)
I still think it would be better to use four digit years.
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:32PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> > the version number should be changed to the following format in
> > such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-2
On 13-Jan-1998 23:35:47, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:32PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> > the version number should be changed to the following format in
> > such cases:
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 11:34:32PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version,
> the version number should be changed to the following format in
> such cases: `96-05-01', `96-12-24', and starting with the year
> 2000 `2000-1
[This mail is part of Debian Policy Weekly issue #5]
Topic 15: Package versions based on dates
STATE: APPROVAL
Some time ago, there was a discussion on debian-policy about how version
numbers should be formatted if there are based on dates. The following
policy proposal is a compromise between
8 matches
Mail list logo