package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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 ?)
>

Red Hat 9 and RHEL 2.x were different products

Rahul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130407/694f0dbf/attachment.html>