[OpenAFS] Re: buildbot and packages

[Andrew Deason]

> On Mon, September 17, 2012 5:50 pm, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> > The challenge is how should version numbers be generated so that
> > tonight's build will upgrade yesterday's build while not interfering
> > with the stable release numbering.

Ah, okay, I wasn't thinking of this as like an unstable "channel" for
people to stick to, but that makes sense.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:56:47 -0400
"Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com> wrote:
>
> How about MAJOR.MINOR.PL.DATESTAMP?   E.g.   1.6.2.120917 This should
> upgrade from 1.6.1, or even 1.6.2, but 1.6.3 should be "newer"
> 
> Does this not work?

That could interfere with versions like 1.6.2.1 that sometimes occur.
Conceptually I could imagine something like maybe 1.6.2.0.120917, but I
don't remember what all the various version rules are for deb and rpm.
And I don't think OS X can handle more than a certain number of version
segments, or something?

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net