Upgrading Minor versions

Res res at ausics.net
Fri Aug 3 10:49:10 IST 2007

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?



More information about the MailScanner mailing list