Re: [PR REVIEW] New package: passt-2023.02.27.c538ee8

[sbrivio-rh <sbrivio-rh@users.noreply.github.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1342 bytes --]

New review comment by sbrivio-rh on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/42517#discussion_r1122457225

Comment:
By the way, Debian package versions are formed with this [uscan rule](https://salsa.debian.org/sbrivio/passt/-/blob/master/debian/watch#L2):

```
options="uversionmangle=s/_//g; s/^/0.0~git/"
```

and this is the [rpkg macro](https://passt.top/passt/tree/contrib/fedora/rpkg.macros#n18) for Fedora:

```
printf "0^%s.g%s" "$(date -uI -d "${__date}" | tr -d -)" "${__commit}"
```

those are just to comply with distribution guidelines, there's no particular reason why. Upstream versions (tags) simply uses `YYYY_MM_DD.SHORT_SHA` as you noted because I find it more readable.

>  Or are you mainly suggesting prepending a 0-Version number in case they start using proper version?

There are no plans to switch to semantic versioning or suchlike. The current agreement, for the foreseeable future, is that dates are more meaningful than version numbers, yet should be readable enough, and the SHA immediately and uniquely identifies tags. We have no branches or "stable" releases, so that's quite convenient.

But sure, prepending a `0` is probably not a bad idea, even though it's a bit less readable. If we ever switch to a different scheme, we could also start with a `3`.