package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[David Tardon]

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:11:44AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia 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".

You are totally missing the point. What I tried to convey is that
expectation that every upstream adheres to your favourite versioning
scheme is not based on reality. You cannot base an argument on it,
because the premise is already invalid. (Did I already say that in the
part that you removed?)

And yes, there actually _are_ projects that use the usual X.Y.Z
versioning scheme, but _did not_ start with version 1.0.0. What comes
immediately to my mind is libreoffice (the first release was 3.3.0) or
libexttextcat (the first release was 3.2.0).

> 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 ?)

Another point for my case.

D.