Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread Santiago Vila
-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

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread joost witteveen
> [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

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread Kai Henningsen
[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 >

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread Mark Baker
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.

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread Scott K. Ellis
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

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-14 Thread Steve Greenland
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:

Re: PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-13 Thread Mark Baker
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

PW#5-15: Package versions based on dates

1998-01-13 Thread Christian Schwarz
[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