Upgrading Minor versions

[Res]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Glenn Steen wrote:

>> This is why I mentioned a couple of days ago about bringing it into line
>> with most other software versioning,  major.minor.beta_number as in
>> 4.63.b1, 4.63.b2 etc reaching the official release as 4.63 (as only 4.63)
>> major. MailScanners installer does not understand at all 4.63.3-5 only
>> 4.63.3, thereby over-writting. As Julian ignored my comments I dare say he
>> has no intention of changing it, as no one else commented, it seems most
>> are happy with it, and I also gather after years of observations 95% of
>> people here use RPM base OS's so they may not be affected by the
>> installers tarball shortfall.
>>
> In the RPM case the -<number> isn't really part of the packaged
> software version number... it is more considered to be a package
> revision number. Indeed, RPM (and other packagers) will take note of
> that difference and act accordingly/safely.
> So perhaps it is the "tarball install method" that need be amended,
> more than the actual numbering scheme... Or one could make it a
> documentation thing... Prominently (on the download page) warn to make
> a cakcup of the /opt/MailScanner<.whatever> directory prior to
> unpacking/installing the tarball.

Yes, but wouldn't it make more sense to use the unified versioning method 
that everyone around the entire world is acustomed to?


-- 

Cheers
Res