[Distutils] Version numbers for module distributions
John Skaller
skaller@maxtal.com.au
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:33:14 +1000
>And I strongly agree with Marc-Andre about staying out of the semantics
>of the version numbers. I'll use a format for the automated tool, but
>stay away from *my* semantics.
<grin>
Add requirement to distutils requirements document:
"Must accomodate existing schemes"
>I would also argue very strongly more more flexibility in the format
>schemes. For example, looking at the RedHat 5.1 distribution, I see a
>few formats:
>
>xzip-161-2.i386.rpm
>yp-tools-1.4.1-2.i386.rpm
>xv-3.10a-10.i386.rpm
>xrn-8.02-7.i386.rpm
>xpm-3.4j-2.i386.rpm
>xmorph-1996.07.12-4.i386.rpm
>xboard-3.2.pl0-9.i386.rpm
>x3270-3.1.1.6-2.i386.rpm
>spice-2g6-7.i386.rpm
>sox-11g-7.i386.rpm
>rdate-0.960923-4.i386.rpm
>nfs-server-2.2beta29-5.i386.rpm
>nenscript-1.13++-11.i386.rpm
>mailx-5.5.kw-9.i386.rpm
>dhcp-2.0b1pl0-2.i386.rpm
And .. they're all RPMs. :-)
>You have to be MUCH more flexible in what you can take for the version
>number. You cannot legislate a numbering scheme to the masses. It simply
>won't work because too many people have an idea of the "right" way to
>number.
Agree.
>As long as you can specify rules for HOW numbers will be compared, then
>you're okay. For example:
>
>1) a version number has 1 or more numbers separate by a period or by
>sequences of letters. If only periods, then these are compared
>left-to-right to determine an ordering.
>2) sequences of letters are part of the tuple for comparison and are
>compared lexicographically
>3) recognize the numeric components may have leading zeroes
>
>That should be about it.
>
>Welcome to Other Peoples' Versioning. Have a nice stay. :-)
I disagree with the above rule :-)
Solution: each package must provide a function
to compare its own version numbers.
Comments?
-------------------------------------------------------
John Skaller email: skaller@maxtal.com.au
http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller
phone: 61-2-96600850
snail: 10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe NSW 2037, Australia