[Hugs-users] changing the hugs version numbering scheme?

21 Feb 2004

      ...
...
...
...
...
"JP" == Jens Petersen  writes:
...
...
...
...
...
"Jens" == Jens Petersen  wrote on 5th Jan:
    Jens> I would like to make the suggestion that future
    Jens> releases of Hugs are made with a version naming
    Jens> convention that is more sort friendly.  The
    Jens> current "MonYear" versioning scheme is problematic
    Jens> for packagers.
Jens> ie the current release would be better called say
    Jens> "200311" (using Debian's hugs98 package versioning
    Jens> scheme) than "Nov2003", since this sorts much more
    Jens> easily.

    JP> Does this sound reasonable?  Any comments from the
    JP> maintainers?

Errm, still no response. :-\

Sorry, I should probably have explained that the reason for
asking is to resolve the following Fedora Extras packaging
issue:

	https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=840
and
	https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=842

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.  So some kind of response would be greatly
appreciated to speed up inclusion of hugs98 at the fedora.us
repository. :-)

Also any help with QA'ing the hugs98 package for Fedora would
be great. :-)

Jens