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).