Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery dijo [Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:05:53PM -0700]:
>> 1.0-1sarge1 >> 1.0-1etch1. We don't have this problem currently >> because 1.0-1etch1 << 1.0-1lenny1, but we will again at some point in >> the future, and it would be nice to resolve it once and for all. Using >> something based on the Debian release version has the advantage that >> the version always increases from release to release. The code names >> bounce all over the place in version sorting space. > Umh... With release cycles close to 18 months, this would mean tha, > being I a bad and lazy maintainer, I didn't touch my native package for > over three years. Say, version 1.0 was released with Sarge, in 2005. At > some point in 2006, a serious flaw is addressed via a NMU, so it sits at > 1.0+sarge1. I still cannot be bothered to take a look at the damn > package. Time passes. In March 2008 it (again) shows it needs to be > taken care of, and you kindly prepare a new NMU, properly labeling it > 1.0+etch1. > It gets rejected, as it is a lower version. > I have not touched the package for three years at last. Tell me, don't > you think this should trigger some QA alarms? At very least, I'd agree > with you uploading 1.~1+etch1. That way, when I'm finally done with my > Precious 1.1 release, I can still properly upload it without any fuzz. Sure, and this is why we haven't seen much problem with this. I think I remember only seeing one of these between sarge and etch. But there was one, and since it's a simple problem to solve by picking a somewhat more predictable versioning scheme, it seems worth the minor effort. There are packages where the only updates between two releases are for minor things like standards-version or Vcs and Homepage headers that aren't horribly vital. They're rare, but they do exist. I've not uploaded a new version of sident since the etch release, for example, and while I plan to do so when I have time to clean up some minor stuff, nothing would be fundamentally broken about it if I didn't. It's less likely that this would happen in combination with non-maintainer or non-unstable updates that would provoke this versioning, but I can see it happening. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
