"Andrew Edwards"  wrote in message news:lbmru9$290b$1@digitalmars.com...
> ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.b1.zip

While you're at it, can we get per-platform zips?  Just take the normal zip and delete all but one platform. 

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella <luca@llucax.com.ar>wrote:

> Jordi Sayol, el 22 de January a las 00:16 me escribiste:
> > If we upgrade the version scheme, we can remove the initial zero too:
> >
> > 2.65.b1
> > 2.65.rc1
> > 2.65.0
> > 2.65.1
>
> Why not use semver? http://semver.org/


+1

this is an obvious choice why re-invent something that is not as good as a already existing standard

On 2014-01-22 01:19, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

> Why not use semver? http://semver.org/
>
> 2.65.0-b1
> 2.65.0-rc1
> 2.65.0
> 2.65.1

Then you would have versions number looking like this:

3.0.0
4.0.0
5.0.0

If we don't want to add a fourth digit.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

El 22/01/14 02:06, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
> On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
>>>      #.###.~b#  ==> 2.065.b1  // beta
>>>      #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
>>>      #.###.0   ==> 2.065.0   // initial release
>>>      #.###.#   ==> 2.065.1   // hotfix
>>
>> On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have installed a newer version".
>>
>> No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for a public download.
>>
>> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || echo "Not bigger"
>>
> 
> Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates with a tilde. As such:
> 
>     2.065~b1
>     2.065~rc1
> 
> or:
> 
>     2.065.~b1
>     2.065.~rc1
> 
> This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the right one. Suggestions are welcomed.

I prefer:

2.65~b1
2.65~rc1

because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version.

I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme:

#.#~b#  ==> 2.65~b1  // beta
#.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
#.#.#   ==> 2.65.0   // initial release
#.#.#   ==> 2.65.1   // hotfix

-- 
Jordi Sayol

On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
> I prefer:
>
> 2.65~b1
> 2.65~rc1
>
> because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version.
>
> I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
> So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme:
>
> #.#~b#  ==> 2.65~b1  // beta
> #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
> #.#.#   ==> 2.65.0   // initial release
> #.#.#   ==> 2.65.1   // hotfix

Please, this has been discussed to death already. Nobody care what anybody prefers. Unless you have an actual reason to ask for a format change (fit better with current packaging systems for instance) please restrain yourself.

On 2014-01-21 23:22, Andrew Edwards wrote:

>      ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.b1.zip

I manged to open this with the zip moulde in Tango now :) The previous beta failed.

>      ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.b1.dmg

The installer is old. The text contains links to D1. The content seem to be correct though. How are you building the installer.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

El 22/01/14 09:31, deadalnix ha escrit:
> On Wednesday, 22 January 2014 at 08:25:05 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
>> I prefer:
>>
>> 2.65~b1
>> 2.65~rc1
>>
>> because "2.65.0" and "2.65" are bigger than "2.65~rc1", regardless if "qualifier" number is present or not in final release version.
>>
>> I think that, as much as possible, we should use exactly the same version string for all installers, zip, deb, rpm, dmg, etc.
>> So if there is no problem on OSX, Windows, etc. I propose this versioning scheme:
>>
>> #.#~b#  ==> 2.65~b1  // beta
>> #.#~rc# ==> 2.65~rc1 // release candidate
>> #.#.#   ==> 2.65.0   // initial release
>> #.#.#   ==> 2.65.1   // hotfix
> 
> Please, this has been discussed to death already. Nobody care what anybody prefers. Unless you have an actual reason to ask for a format change (fit better with current packaging systems for instance) please restrain yourself.
> 

Please, if you don't like this proposed change based on a real problem on Debian and not on my "prefers", refute it with arguments but do not tell me that I should keep quiet.

-- 
Jordi Sayol

On 2014-01-21 23:22, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> Due to building an packaging requirements and a need to address the
> concerns of the community, I changed the naming convention for this and
> all future releases.
>
> The following is our new naming convention:
>
>      major.minor.qualifier
>
> Examples follow:
>
>      #.###.b#  ==> 2.065.b1  // beta
>      #.###.rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
>      #.###.0   ==> 2.065.0   // initial release
>      #.###.#   ==> 2.065.1   // hotfix
>
> Consequently, the name for the previously announced beta has changed.
> Additionally, installers were prepared and made available. They are as
> follows:
>
>      ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.b1.zip
>

Regression: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11966

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 1/22/14, 3:38 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-21 23:22, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>
>>      ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.b1.dmg
>
> The installer is old. The text contains links to D1. The content seem to
> be correct though. How are you building the installer.
>

That might be the case. I'm following the instructions here:

	https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/tree/master/osx

Last update was over 9 months ago.

Andrew Edwards, el 21 de January a las 20:06 me escribiste:
> On 1/21/14, 6:02 PM, Jordi Sayol wrote:
> >El 21/01/14 23:29, Brad Anderson ha escrit:
> >>     #.###.~b#  ==> 2.065.b1  // beta
> >>     #.###.~rc# ==> 2.065.rc1 // release candidate
> >>     #.###.0   ==> 2.065.0   // initial release
> >>     #.###.#   ==> 2.065.1   // hotfix
> >
> >On Debian, "2.065.rc1" is bigger than "2.065.0", so if "dmd_2.065.rc1-0_amd64.deb" is installed and you try to upgrade to "dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb", system will answer something like "You have installed a newer version".
> >
> >No problem if these deb packages are for internal use and test, but not for a public download.
> >
> >$ dpkg --compare-versions "2.065.0" gt "2.065.rc1" && echo "Bigger" || echo "Not bigger"
> >
> 
> Apparently the same problem exists on FreeBSD. The first solution that comes to mind is to prefix the qualifiers for betas and release candidates with a tilde. As such:
> 
> 	2.065~b1
> 	2.065~rc1
> 
> or:
> 
> 	2.065.~b1
> 	2.065.~rc1
> 
> This solution works on both Ubuntu and FreeBSD but I'm not sure it is the right one. Suggestions are welcomed.

There is a fairly popular de-facto standard for versioning: semver. Yes,
it is incompatible with Debian (and I guess FreeBSD) but you can make
it compatible by just changing one character ("-" -> "~").

Since apparently a version naming scheme is needed, does anyone have a good reason NOT to use a standard that's easily adaptable to several popular distributions?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/