[arch-general] How stable are the new version number formats on eg. filesystem, usbutils, etc.

Daniel Micay danielmicay at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 18:41:06 EST 2014

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, David C. Rankin
<drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>   Updating different minimum dependency package version info for tde PKGBUILDs,
> I note there have been a number of 'version number format' changes for various
> packages. E.g.:
> filesystem 0.x.y-z ==> 2013.05-2
> usbutils 0.x.y-z ==> 006-1
>   There is a big difference going from filesystem>=0.7.3 to filesystem>=2013.
> When I run across packages like this where the version has changed format -- Are
> they likely going to stay with the new format? Or will they likely revert back
> to major.minor-rel numbers at some time?
> --
> David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

This is handled with the `epoch` part of the version now, so it's a
non-issue. Arch generally doesn't make use of minimum version
requirements at all because partial upgrades are not supported.

More information about the arch-general mailing list