On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 20:27 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: > Ken Brown writes: > >> Version numbers like the one Ken has proposed are becoming common in > >> Linux distributions, so we'd rather check that setup handles them > >> correctly. I think Jari already uses a bunch of them. The thing here > >> is that for all versioning schemes that use hashes you need to prepend > >> an ISO date so things sort correctly, but I'd rather not append this to > >> the release number, so I'd suggest VERSION=2.49+YYYYMMDDhg15623 instead. > >> Also, I don't think it's a good idea to allow "." in the release > >> number. Alphas already work in that place (I use that for snapshots > >> since years) and are a lot less ambigous if you try to parse the release > >> out of a file name. > > > > Sorry, but Yaakov says we already allow dots in the release number, > > and he's the distro czar. So I'm going with his suggestion. > > As you wish. I still think his view is somewhat unique looking at the > version numbers in several Linux distros that provide packages > in-between-official-releases from several VCS. The only case that I > know where the VCS revision tag was used in the relase part of the > version string was when the release was made from a local branch in all > other cases they'd been appended to the latest release version string.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning Except we don't (yet) have Epoch (PTC). -- Yaakov
