[Top][All Lists]

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

version numbering and tarball format (was Re: [Lynx-dev] unpacked direct

From: Thorsten Glaser
Subject: version numbering and tarball format (was Re: [Lynx-dev] unpacked directory name)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:30:10 +0000 (UTC)

Philip Webb dixit:

>080518 Thomas Dickey wrote:

>as they don't treat 'dev' versions as full-scale releases, which they are,

>Is there any problem with calling each new version from now on
>'2.8.7', '2.8.8', '2.8.9' etc (yes, '2.8.100' if it gets that far) ?

Bela Lubkin dixit:

>Obviously lynx2.8.7dev.9.tar.bz2 should unpack into lynx2.8.7dev.9/.

I'd be all in favour of calling the next release 3.00 and then going
on from there numerically (3.01, 3.02, etc.) with only one decimal
dot in the version number ☺

Otherwise, incrementing 0.0.1 per what is a “dev” version now, and
0.1.* per what is a “release” version now sounds good to me too. I
used to be irritated at first by the extra dot before the dev suf-
fix as well, so I'd recommend lynx-X.Y.Z.tar.{Z,gz} extracting in-
to a lynx-X.Y.Z/ directory.

On an unrelated side note, my version of tar/pax/cpio has a flag
to optionally strip uid/gid and inode information from the tar-
and cpioballs, making them pack smaller. If that's desired, that

[...] if maybe ext3fs wasn't a better pick, or jfs, or maybe reiserfs, oh but
what about xfs, and if only i had waited until reiser4 was ready... in the be-
ginning, there was ffs, and in the middle, there was ffs, and at the end, there
was still ffs, and the sys admins knew it was good. :)  -- Ted Unangst über *fs

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]