package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

> Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU
49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch?

If you look at the source code and the package names, Java wasn't really
renumbered that badly, Java 1.4 was succeeded by Java 1.5, and Java 1.5 by
Java 1.6. They're just marketed misleadingly.  Sun's desicsion to screw up
numbering this way is a reflection of when they tried to "SunOS 4" as
"Solaris 2.5".

A better example is when the update of Red Hat 9 got renumbered and updated
to RHEL 2.x. And don't *get* me going on mod_perl numbering or CPAN version
numbering. (Whose bright idea was it to use floating point? Version 2.237
is older than version 2.3 ?)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130407/0feed75d/attachment-0001.html>