[suggest] Re: suggest Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16

Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 14:49:14 CEST 2009


> From: Pavel Kankovsky <peak at argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
> Subject: Re: [suggest] perl-DateTime (was: Re: suggest Digest, Vol 48,
>        Issue   15)
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> And if, for example, RPMforge has a perl-DateTime-0.5000 (since that
>> module is up to 0.50 in Dave Rolsky's source code), and RedHat puts it
>> out, which is the more recent version? RedHat's 0.50, or your 0.4305 and
>> 0.4400 and 0.4500?
>
> 0.43.05 < 0.50 < 0.4305 < 0.4400 < 0.4500 < 0.5000
>
> This means you can't change the version number from 0.xxyy to 0.xx.yy
> without using Epoch (or Serial) and the result will probably be
> incompatible with someone else's (eg. RH's) version numbering.

Excuse me? This is exactly what we want, because the existing system
of merely using the CPAN release number creates this:

   0.43 < 0.50 < 0.4305 < 0.5001

Those are the kinds of versions numbers Dave Rolsky is using for his
versions, understandably but unfortunately.
In this case, one has to be careful not to and never to publish
versions 0.4500 and 0.4400 and 0.5000, and keep them out of the RPM
repositories.

> Anyway, there is already perl-DateTime in Fedora but it appears to be a
> completely different Perl package. :P
> See <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=971>

perl-TimeDate is not the same as perl-DateTime. It fills different
module dependencies of already existing modules, even if it has
similar overall functions.



More information about the users mailing list