Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov <at> tut.by>
2008-07-02 11:50:06 GMT
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, David Holland wrote:
>> > > I suppose the Dewey logic is upset that 0.5 > 0.40? Unfortunately,
>> > > many packages are versioned that way.
>> > Perhaps the 0.5 should have been 0.50? I don't know anything about
>> > this particular package, but I do think that it a very bad thing for a
>> > version number to go backwards.
>> Yeah, presumably. Unfortunately (as the longer list of downgrades that
>> was posted elsewhere shows) this interpretation of minor version
>> digits is fairly common. While having the version number go backwards
>> is bad, rearranging the version number semantics so as to disagree
>> with upstream is probably bad too...
> upstream realized the problem and released 0.60, which I put in pkgsrc
This is good, but the real problem is not with this particular package
but with that there is no control for downgrades at all.
Today I've filled a PR about this problem.
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.