Re: [boost] boost dll versions

From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-15 08:54:31

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> 
>>>Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then., the name '1.33' somehow suggests
>>>>two levels of versions, while really there is only one (by the way: why
>>>>do you carry the '1.' around ? Do you expect a 'release 2' at some point
>>>>? If so, in what way would such a release be different from an upgrade
>>>>from 1.32 to 1.33, say ?)
>>>
>>>Heh, very good quesion!
>> 
>> 
>> Yes it is.  Boost really should have just released v33.1.  Then,
>> a version with FOREACH and whatnot could be 33.2.  Any patch
>> release to fix last minute problems with 33.1 would be 33.1.1.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure I agree. The problem I see with '1.33' is that it
> suggests a difference between the number before the dot and after,
> or, put differently, distinct release cycles for major and minor
> releases (which typically come with specific semantics as to ABI / API
> compatibility).
> If you don't want to give any guarantee concerning compatibility
> between two subsequent releases, you should IMO use simple numbers
> (32, 33, ...), and leave the 'dot releases' to packagers and distributors
> (such as redhat, debian, etc.) to roll their own bug-fix releases,
> and let those care for compatibility issues to satisfy their customers.
> 
>

I think the convention on Redhat, and probably others, is to use -release. 
Just like I did with boost-1.33.0-9.srpm.  That is, vendor updates don't
use '.', they use '-'.