Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:55:06PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Yes, I am exaggerating here, but does it make sense to have package
> python3-3.3? Why we don't have python3-1.0? Where is the version 1.0
> of python 3? Why we duplicating the version? Non of these question
> makes you think that we are doing something wrong? Actually we are
> again at the beginning, since this is how the thread started.

Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU
49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch?
Version is just an arbitrary string of numbers assigned by upstream.
There is no inherent meaning in it. The only requirement on it is that
it be monotonically increasing, in whatever way the upstream chooses. If
it pleases them to use hexadecimal numbers, or to append additional
numbers to the end to approach some well-known irrational number (e.g.,
pi or e), so be it.

Therefore, any argument that is based on "where is the version 1.0 of
package foo?" is just meaningless.

D.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux