[Sugar-devel] Proposal of dotted activity version number

Martin Langhoff martin.langhoff at gmail.com
Wed Oct 6 17:00:38 EDT 2010

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:47 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonzalo at laptop.org> wrote:
>> Then I plan to ignore the customization when I  compute the order.
> So why is it there?

To allow identification. But what Gonzalo pointed out is that in the
case of 1.1-peru vs 1.1-argentina, vs 1.1, it makes sense to match
them as equal. They shouldn't trigger an upgrade from one to the

I had a long chat with Gonzalo on the topic of versioning.

Initially, I advocated strongly for something with the expresiveness
of dpkg's versioning. However, that's wrong. We need to use a clear
_subset_ of what dpkg, rpm, portage(... etc) can do, so the distro
packager retains its flexibility (see: epoch).

It is true, dpkg considers 1.1-peru to be an upgrade over
1.1-argentina, due to alpha ordering. But that has no useful meaning.

> Either solve the problem correctly, or solve it as simply as possible.

This solves it as simply as possible.

 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list