[maemo-developers] The issue of version strings

[From: Aniello Del Sorbo]

2009/10/31 Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com>:
>
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 12:44, Juha Kallioinen wrote:
>
>> ext Niels Breet wrote:
>>> On Thu, October 29, 2009 09:01, Martin Grimme wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hmm, what's so bad about a simple date for a version number?
>>>> Ubuntu does
>>>> it, (Open)Solaris does it, and I started doing it, too, because I
>>>> found it
>>>> less confusing than having version numbers such as e.g. 0.96.5.
>>>
>>> Sane version numbers should at least not look like this:
>>> 2.0.0+cvs20040908+mp4v2+bmp-0ubuntu6maemo1
>>>
>>> And yes, this is an actual package version number ;)
>>
>> And a perfectly good one too! :)
>
> I don't agree. :P
>
>> It's useful not to change the upstream
>> package version too much so that it's easier to see that a package
>> could use
>> updating.
>
> But in this case it has both the ubuntu and maemo strings. The policy
> says that you use the 'maemo' string only if you have modified the
> package in some way for maemo, is this the case with that package? Or
> is in modified for ubuntu? Or is it modified for maemo and the ubuntu
> modifications have been kept?
>
> Furthermore what is 'bmp' and how is that helpful? What is mp4v2? And
> how is that helpful? And why have both a version number _and_ a
> version control system number? Perhaps use one or the other.
>>
>> The problem is imho the Application manager, not the version numbers.
>>
>> What's the point of even displaying the version number in the
>> Application
>> manager's default view? I personally don't care about the version at
>> all and
>> I certainly won't remember if an application's version has been
>> updated by
>> looking at the list view. Am I alone with this opinion? Why do you
>> need to
>> see the version there? The update manager will gladly tell me if I
>> have an
>> older version installed and if I don't, won't I just install
>> whatever the
>> Application manager offers me?
>
> Good points, but Ryan's original point is still valid and these issues
> also affect any place you have to use version numbers, not just the
> Application Manager. The string that Niels posted could be shortened
> to: 2.0.0-6maemo1
>
> This leaves you with the version number of the upstream source, the
> version of upstream packaging, and the maemo packaged version. Here
> you have all the trackability you need with simplicity. I think the
> original request is a good one and developers/maintainers ought to
> consider revising their version strings for clarity.
>

Few people complained that Xournal 0.4.2.1-1fremantle13 was too long.
I will make a diablo version as well (0.4.2.1-1diablo3).

It's not my fault if Fremantle is a long name :P
Anyway, suggestions?

Bear in mind that 0.4.2.1-1fremantle13 is now in Extras, changing it
will make it a new package?

-- 
anidel
Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom