Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > linux.debian.policy > #9350
| From | Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.policy |
| Subject | Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x |
| Date | 2026-05-06 02:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <MRxQd-2T5t-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <MRvbH-2RvK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <MRvbH-2RvK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <MRvv4-2RD2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <MRvbH-2RvK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <MRvv4-2RD2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hi! On Tue, 2026-05-05 at 22:19:17 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2026 at 22:07:34 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > + <p> > > + When upstream doesn't make numbered releases, > > + consider starting the upstream part of the version number > > + (as used in the Debian) with <tt>0.x</tt>. > > + That way if upstream start making conventional releases, > > + an epoch won't be necessary. > > + </p> For some reason I thought this was already documented somewhere, but if it is, I cannot find it in either the Debian Policy or the Developer's Reference. But in any case I think something like this should be documented, yes. > Won't this do the wrong thing when the "0.20260505" snapshot is > superseded by upstream release 0.1 or similar? Upstreams don't > always start numbering from 1.0, especially if they're using > "semver" where 0.x releases have special semantics. > > In some of my packages where the upstream has not yet made any > releases (like src:openjk) I've used a version like 0~20260505, > which avoids that. I think 0~YYYYMMDD is the right pattern, because 0 sorts lower than 0.0 for example. > I've also seen ~20260505 suggested, but I think that breaks the > least-astonishment rule that a version number should usually start > with a number. But this one is not, because a version should start with a digit (according to the Debian Policy and deb-version(7)), and otherwise at least dpkg will emit warnings on these versions, but other tools might outright reject them. Thanks, Guillem
Back to linux.debian.policy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:10 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2026-05-05 23:30 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:50 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2026-05-06 11:10 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2026-05-06 12:40 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2026-05-06 02:00 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2026-05-06 22:50 +0200
Bug#1135785: Suggest starting date-based version numbers with 0.x Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2026-05-07 10:20 +0200
csiph-web