Re: Question about clisp version naming

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin dot com>]

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 14:42 -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 20:27 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > Ken Brown writes:
> > >> Version numbers like the one Ken has proposed are becoming common in
> > >> Linux distributions, so we'd rather check that setup handles them
> > >> correctly.  I think Jari already uses a bunch of them.  The thing here
> > >> is that for all versioning schemes that use hashes you need to prepend
> > >> an ISO date so things sort correctly, but I'd rather not append this to
> > >> the release number, so I'd suggest VERSION=2.49+YYYYMMDDhg15623 instead.
> > >> Also, I don't think it's a good idea to allow "."  in the release
> > >> number.  Alphas already work in that place (I use that for snapshots
> > >> since years) and are a lot less ambigous if you try to parse the release
> > >> out of a file name.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but Yaakov says we already allow dots in the release number,
> > > and he's the distro czar.  So I'm going with his suggestion.
> > 
> > As you wish.  I still think his view is somewhat unique looking at the
> > version numbers in several Linux distros that provide packages
> > in-between-official-releases from several VCS.  The only case that I
> > know where the VCS revision tag was used in the relase part of the
> > version string was when the release was made from a local branch in all
> > other cases they'd been appended to the latest release version string.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
> 
> Except we don't (yet) have Epoch (PTC).

I should also point out that packages already using extended VERSIONs
may not be able to switch immediately to this scheme without a real
VERSION bump.

--
Yaakov