[Distutils] Version numbers for module distributions

John Skaller skaller@maxtal.com.au
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:33:14 +1000

>And I strongly agree with Marc-Andre about staying out of the semantics
>of the version numbers. I'll use a format for the automated tool, but
>stay away from *my* semantics.


        Add requirement to distutils requirements document:
        "Must accomodate existing schemes"

>I would also argue very strongly more more flexibility in the format
>schemes. For example, looking at the RedHat 5.1 distribution, I see a
>few formats:

        And .. they're all RPMs. :-)

>You have to be MUCH more flexible in what you can take for the version
>number. You cannot legislate a numbering scheme to the masses. It simply
>won't work because too many people have an idea of the "right" way to


>As long as you can specify rules for HOW numbers will be compared, then
>you're okay. For example:
>1) a version number has 1 or more numbers separate by a period or by
>sequences of letters. If only periods, then these are compared
>left-to-right to determine an ordering.
>2) sequences of letters are part of the tuple for comparison and are
>compared lexicographically
>3) recognize the numeric components may have leading zeroes
>That should be about it.
>Welcome to Other Peoples' Versioning. Have a nice stay. :-)

        I disagree with the above rule :-)

        Solution: each package must provide a function
to compare its own version numbers.

John Skaller    email: skaller@maxtal.com.au
		phone: 61-2-96600850
		snail: 10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe NSW 2037, Australia