Re: [arch-haskell] Fwd: RFQ: Proposal for new versioning of packages

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Release numbers would still be reset on adding:

xrev == 0 --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-76-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz add xrev == n && n > 0 --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-1.n-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz add <next ver>, xrev == 0 -->haskell-zlib-<next ver>-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz

The only concern that I have with your versioning is that having 0.x in

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 07:07:48PM +0900, Nicola Squartini wrote: the

...

release number might suggest that the package is still in a testing stage. And I make xrev == 0 first class (not adding the ".n") because I believe Hackage revisions are ugly and should not exist. Anyway, whatever scheme you choose it's good for me :)

It's addition after bump of x-revision that I worry about:

xrev == 0 --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-76-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz add xrev == n && n > 0 --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-1.n-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz rebuild --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-2.n-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz add <next x-rev> --> haskell-zlib-0.5.4.2-1.-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz add <next ver>, xrev == 0 --> haskell-zlib-<next ver>-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz

As you see, if the release is put before the x-rev and the release number is reset on add, then we end up going backwards in version numbers.

/M

-- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus

The results point out the fragility of programmer expertise: advanced programmers have strong expectations about what programs should look like, and when those expectations are violated--in seemingly innocuous ways--their performance drops drastically. -- Elliot Soloway and Kate Ehrlich

_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell