On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:43:48PM +0100, Sven Panne wrote: > Jens Petersen wrote: > >[...] To summarize, basically the problem is that the package > >version may end up being versioned at 0.0 unless upstream > >(ie the Hugs maintainers here) agree to some improved > >(machine friendly) version numbering scheme like YYYYMM > >instead. [...] > > I would be even more happy with the common major.minor numbering scheme, > with the usual even (= stable) / odd (= unstable) distinction of the minor > version number, see e.g. the Linux kernel, GHC,... Ross, Sigbjorn?
I don't mind YYYYMM -- less of a break with tradition, or YYYY-MM (though that might force an epoch on Debian). Note that snapshots are already versioned YYYYMMDD -- you'd probably want a separate package if you packaged them (as Isaac does for Debian). _______________________________________________ Hugs-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-users
