From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13080 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2017 18:32:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 13069 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2017 18:32:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=timestamp, among, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: smtp-out-so.shaw.ca Received: from smtp-out-so.shaw.ca (HELO smtp-out-so.shaw.ca) (64.59.136.138) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:32:34 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.64.240.204]) by shaw.ca with SMTP id 9bKxeE1Yf8LPZ9bKyeX0kv; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:32:32 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=e552ceh/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:117 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=KSb9T-wMAAAA:8 a=8YpFXuXtJoJqFfcWgvMA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=KF4VuIdXkMyp4E_ug72i:22 Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Subject: Re: [[PATCH setup] 0/3] Prepare for colons in version numbers To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20171027184723.9324-1-kbrown@cornell.edu> <87wp3gs87a.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <4eb3bda2-c6a2-bc48-d042-d54229a28514@dronecode.org.uk> <20171031112109.GF7980@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Brian Inglis Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfA4xJf4gpPuz9WEKwQBswcJw0tyuE9RZumt6KIjZYbShLJcUSNCByGaq/uHm5llxbq9+yd7CHoAXIdXDIcKK+TDwek/DbN/gXKjP6nt0oZxqpxjVfg/l fALYCopWBl6rwbZAWwl99vGPsvg+X65xH+M8b4H88MDVJcvnH4o6GiBzzDRjc+mYem4WUVl09b1T0w== X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 On 2017-10-31 12:15, Achim Gratz wrote: > Am 31.10.2017 um 12:21 schrieb Corinna Vinschen: >> Not sure what distros you're referring to.  Of the 58467 packages >> in Fedora 26, 7822 are using epochs. > > I'm expecting as much since it was rpm that introduced the epoch IIRC (I think > an earlier approach was using a "serial number").  Debian is still using epochs > in some places even though they've long provided facilities in apt to make them > obsolete.  The distro I can positively say doesn't use any epoch numbers is > openSUSE: > > https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_naming_guidelines OpenSUSE mandates package version rules and provides special characters to mitigate any problems with upstream package version numbering, making the OpenSUSE package version independent of the upstream version unless it conforms: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_naming_guidelines#Handling_special_version_strings > The idea of the epoch is to provide a total ordering among all possible version > numbers, which still doesn't work if the ordering gets changed retroactivekly.  > But a total ordering is not necessary to do in practise since you never keep all > versions available in the install repo, so an ordering among the available > versions is all that matters. Another approach would be to add a packaging server release timestamp e.g. strftime %s metadata which provides ordering independent of versions. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada