Date: 20 Mar 2000 19:13:16 -0800 From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: mharo@area51.fremont.ca.us Cc: FreeBSD Ports Team <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Version Numbering Question Message-ID: <vqcd7opvwvn.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Michael Haro's message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:49 -0800" References: <20000320154048.A86305@area51.fremont.ca.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Michael Haro <mharo@area51.fremont.ca.us> * Hi, I noticed lots of ports violating the handbook guidelines and using * versioning like -1.2.3pl4. * * For ports that *have* version numbers and then patch levels, should * we allow 'pl' in the version or change the version number in the ports * to something like 1.2.3p4? Patch levels are just part of version numbers. I think "1.2.3.4" will be just fine, since it is unambiguous (nobody in their right mind will release 1.2.3pl4 and 1.2.3.4 of the same software) and have the nice property of having version number components separated by periods (which is useful in guessing which of two version number components is newer). Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcd7opvwvn.fsf>