>>>>> "RP" == Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RP> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:43:48PM +0100, Sven Panne
RP> wrote:
>> Jens Petersen wrote:
>> >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?
Sounds reasonable. :-)
RP> I don't mind YYYYMM -- less of a break with
RP> tradition, or YYYY-MM (though that might force an
RP> epoch on Debian).
For rpm packaging YYYYMM is preferrable to YYYY-MM, since
rpm uses "-" as a field separator (<name>-<version>-<release>).
Thanks, Jens
_______________________________________________
Hugs-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-users
