Re: new betas for GGV and GHex...

[Peter Teichman <peter ximian com>]

On 02 Mar 2001 16:08:13 -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> On 02 Mar 2001 10:28:22 -0500, jacob berkman wrote:
> > On 02 Mar 2001 14:25:13 +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> > > Jaka Mocnik <jaka gnu org> writes:
> > > 
> > > > ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/stable/sources/ghex/ghex-1.2-beta2.tar.gz
> > > > 
> > > > and
> > > > 
> > > > ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/stable/sources/ggv/ggv-1-0-beta2.tar.gz
> > > 
> > > Argl...  Next time, please drop the dash in front of the string "beta"
> > > ;)  rpm doesn't like dashes in version numbers.
> > 
> > well, if you are using the "beta" part in the version number you will be
> > screwed when the real one comes out, since 1.2beta2 has a higher version
> > # than 1.2.
> > 
> > i'm sure you knew this though.
> 
> Anybody running the betas should be competent to 'rpm -Uvh
> --oldpackage'.  The hyphen in the string just makes it a bitch to
> package at all, rather than something that can easily be overcome.  I
> personally think that it should have been 0.9 or something, but that's
> just me.

What about the people packaging the betas and trying to maintain a clean
upgrade path between versions?

There are already two perfectly good numbers in both those version
strings that can be used for version comparisons. Adding four more
letters and a number becomes a pain for anyone trying to provide an
upgrade path, especially when the final version is going to sort earlier
than the prereleases.

Peter

 

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers