Re: [Caml-list] Debian's version-numbering convention

[Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com>]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:57:13PM +0000, David Allsopp wrote:
> Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:10:15PM +0200, Damien Doligez wrote:
> > >
> > > > In Debian "~" is used to denote versions smaller than, e.g.
> > > > 4.04.0~beta1, 4.04.0~rc4 while "+" is for versions larger than, e.g.
> > > > 4.03.0+bugfix7. Would it be possible to adapt the same for ocaml
> > > > versions?
> > >
> > > No. We have a well-defined syntax for version numbers and we can't
> > > change it without breaking an unknown number of tools.
> > >
> > > -- Damien
> > 
> > Yet on Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Grégoire Henry wrote:
> > > > Two questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Does OPAM really implement the Debian spec for comparing version
> > > > numbers$
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > 
> > This accords with the ocaml spec:
> 
> That's the OPAM spec, not the OCaml spec!

I see.  You are right.  There appears to be a distinction I was not aware of.

-- hendrik

> 
> > http://opam.ocaml.org/doc/Manual.html#version-ordering
> > 
> > This suggests that any package-handling packages that don't handle "~"
> > in the Debian way need to be fixed, possibly even old versions.  It's not
> > a matter of compatibility; it's a matter of error.
> 
> That's true if you're handling OPAM package versions, but the OCaml version number is defined differently in http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/libref/Sys.html#VALocaml_version.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs