This is why 5.2.99.x would have been a more sensible choice for betas. On Tue, 3 Mar 2026, 10:02 Greg Troxel, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Vince Skahan <[email protected]> writes: > > > We've seen this years ago. The problem is "5.3.0" is before "5.3.0b1" > > alphabetically so it's considered earlier. > > > > Make a file containing the following: > > 5.3.0b1 > > 5.3.0 > > 5.3.0a1 > > > > Then run it through 'sort' and that returns: > > 5.3.0 > > 5.3.0a1 > > 5.3.0b1 > > Wow, and if that's it, it points out that > > packaging systems need to have sorting that works with package > versions used by upstreams > > releases need to use a limited set of numbering plans that work with > packaging systems > > but... a1, b1, rc1 are very very normal and a packaging system that > mis-sorts them seems like a bug. > > Long ago, when having your very own microVAX in your grad student office > was exciting, GNU conventions were that alpha, beta, rc for 5.3.0 would > be > > 5.2.71 alpha1 > 5.2.81 beta1 > 5.2.91 rc1 > > which sorted correctly. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "weewx-user" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/rmitsuxq1ib.fsf%40s1.lexort.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weewx-user" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/CAGTinV6ZMokxAm4OhLEijEQVKhEbF0OCTroJ7LcRDHwhvatS8g%40mail.gmail.com.
