Re[2]: [Gc] RE: GC version numbering

Ivan Maidanski ivmai at
Mon May 21 08:13:15 PDT 2012

Hi Vitaly,

Mon, 21 May 2012 15:22:05 +0300 Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya at>:
> Petter Urkedal wrote:
> > On 2012-05-20, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> >> Like this (and name tarball as gc-7.2-rev-b.tar.gz), right?
> > 
> > I think it would be nice if the tar revisions are also valid revisions
> > for common packaging systems.  E.g. RPM uses the dash to separate the
> > software version from the package revision (which indicates patches and
> > changes to packaging).  I think gc-7.2b is ok from RPM's point of view,
> > but I'm not sure how it sorts compared to gc-7.2.1.
> For what it's worth, FreeBSD ports don't allow dashes in versions,
> and 7.2b sorts higher than 7.2.1 (7.2.b < 7.2.b1 < 7.2 < 7.2.1 < 7.2b
> < 7.2b.1). In any case, we don't rely on tarball names to be properly
> sorted according to the ports rules, so it's not inconvenient either
> way.

In exactly this case (i.e. if the version will not be updated in configure and config.h), you would have to rely only on tarball names.

Ivan Maidanski

More information about the Gc mailing list