[packaging] versions (was: Beeing...)

[Tortanick]

On Friday 26 January 2007 10:40, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <45B8969D.6080001 at ahsoftware.de>, Alexander Holler
> <holler at ahsoftware.de> writes
>
> I think you mean numbers ... :-)
>
> And the versioning system I'm used to (and would use for anything I
> wrote) is that bug-fixes are identified by letters. In other words, you
> can (mostly) safely ignore them, unless the bug impacts on you.
>
> Just my style ... probably different from other people ...

You know, I really like you're style, but what happens if you have now 
features & a bugfix rolled into one?

Anyway getting back to point, Ian has persoanlly said that the dependency will 
be on a LSB version and anything else needed is shipped by the ISV. so some 
kind of grand unified version scheme is not needed. Instead the packager 
could simply as stage one of the auto-updater read a list saying if you have 
version x, use patch y. this means that patch y could be version "Uncle Bob" 
and the package manager will understand it just fine.

An added advantage is that it removes ambiguaty on the upgrade path. E.G. 
1.1 --> 1.2 --> 1.3 --> 2.0 --2.1 
or 
1.1 --> 2.1 
or 
1.1 --> 1.0 --> 2.0 --> 2.1

and so on, since the package manager meerly needs to follow instructions from 
the ISV who presumibly will chose the best upgrade path
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20070126/a05c936b/attachment.pgp