🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <249.6661T1196T2723@idirect.com> boisvert@idirect.com (Sebastien Boisvert) writes:
> I've been using my Amiga for a long while now, but I'm still not sure how
> version numbers work. Is version 1.23 version of a program more recent than
> 1.9? If so, I've been replacing a lot of libraries and such with older
> versions! :-\

   As I've read it, in the version string inside the binary, the number before
the period should be the minimum OS version that the program/library/device
requires, with the revision number after the period.  And yes, 1.23 usually
would be later than 1.9, as the period is not a decimal point.

-- 
Jonathan Gapen (innuendo@execpc.com)
Bread in, toast out. How does it DO that?

Sebastien Boisvert wrote:
> 
> I've been using my Amiga for a long while now, but I'm still not sure how
> version numbers work. Is version 1.23 version of a program more recent than
> 1.9? If so, I've been replacing a lot of libraries and such with older
> versions! :-\

Version DOT Revision.

Ex. 43.1
    43.10

43.1 is Version 43, Revision 1
43.10 is Version 43, Revision 10

Hope that helped...

-- 
Roger Martensson	E-Mail: ragge@medio.mh.se
Slattervagen 19		WWW: http://www.eagle.ovik.se/~ragge/
S-831 61 OSTERSUND	IRC: Ragge
SWEDEN				Note: Amiga - Can't Beat The Feeling

Hi!

Sebastien wrote:

> version numbers work. Is version 1.23 version of a program more recent than
> 1.9? If so, I've been replacing a lot of libraries and such with older

1.23 is a later version, it's the 23rd revision of version
1.

Greetings, Bernd
--
Bye, Bernd
--
Sorry, no cookie available yet!

SB> I've been using my Amiga for a long while now, but I'm still not sure how
SB> version numbers work. Is version 1.23 version of a program more recent than
SB> 1.9? If so, I've been replacing a lot of libraries and such with older
SB> versions! :-\

you are right. It is not as with decimal digits (1,9 being more than 1,25)
but it is a simply growing number behind the decimal point (1.25 being newer
than 1.9).

Hope you have a backup ;)


SB> Thanks!
SB>
SB> Seb
SB>

Regards
Michael Hensche, Wuppertal

Hi Michael,

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Michael Hensche wrote:

> you are right. It is not as with decimal digits (1,9 being more than 1,25)
> but it is a simply growing number behind the decimal point (1.25 being newer
> than 1.9).
>
> Hope you have a backup ;)
>
>
> Regards
> Michael Hensche, Wuppertal
>

WHAT? Are you telling me that 1.25 is newer then 1.9? How in the H E
double hockey sticks does that work out to be correct?

If this is the case then there are more people doing the version numbers
wrong then are doing it right.

"Any company or programmer that knows anything about software production
realizes that if double digits are to be used to right of the decimal
point (and should be), then they must remain consistent through-out.  So
any product that has version 1.25 must use either version 1.09 or 1.90 to
avoid confusion".

"If a company or programmer is stupid enough to have inconsistently used
both a single digit and a double digit to the right of the decimal point,
then in this example, v1.9 would be considered v1.90 and thus newer than
v1.25".


Michael (shotgun@slip.net)

Founding member of S.A.D. (Slipnet A Disappointment)

Now with new members!!

In article <Pine.SOL.3.92.960407011332.3678C-100000@slip-3.slip.net> Michael <shotgun@slip.net> writes:
> 
> If this is the case then there are more people doing the version numbers
> wrong then are doing it right.
> 
> "Any company or programmer that knows anything about software production
> realizes that if double digits are to be used to right of the decimal
> point (and should be), then they must remain consistent through-out.  So
> any product that has version 1.25 must use either version 1.09 or 1.90 to
> avoid confusion".
> 
> "If a company or programmer is stupid enough to have inconsistently used
> both a single digit and a double digit to the right of the decimal point,
> then in this example, v1.9 would be considered v1.90 and thus newer than
> v1.25".

   As I pointed out in my reply to the original query, Amiga version strings
don't use decimal points, they use periods.  There's a difference:
   $12.95 -> dollar value using decimal point
   156.46.88.37 -> IP address using periods
   When talking about Amiga version strings, you say "one DOT nine" or "one
DOT two-five."  The RKRMs are very specific on this point.

-- 
Jonathan Gapen (innuendo@execpc.com)
Bread in, toast out. How does it DO that?

Michael (shotgun@slip.net) wrote:
 
> WHAT? Are you telling me that 1.25 is newer then 1.9? How in the H E
> double hockey sticks does that work out to be correct?
> 
> If this is the case then there are more people doing the version numbers
> wrong then are doing it right.
> 
> "Any company or programmer that knows anything about software production
> realizes that if double digits are to be used to right of the decimal
> point (and should be), then they must remain consistent through-out.  So
> any product that has version 1.25 must use either version 1.09 or 1.90 to
> avoid confusion".
> 
> "If a company or programmer is stupid enough to have inconsistently used
> both a single digit and a double digit to the right of the decimal point,
> then in this example, v1.9 would be considered v1.90 and thus newer than
> v1.25".
> 
> 
> Michael (shotgun@slip.net)
> 

You are still thinking in decimal fractions, the abbreviated version number
is TWO seperate numbers seperated by a period.

Following the above examples

Version 1, Revision 9 is written as 1.9
Version 1, Revision 25 is written as 1.25
Version 1, Revision 90 is written as 1.90

This is the method CATS suggested as been easiest to test for by
software which needs to know which version it is working with. As in,
"I need version 9 do I check for 9 or 09 or 009 .... ?" :)

Other systems are used RCS for example uses 3 numbers separated by
period 1.2.3 etc.

Sug
--
Peter Suggitt <peter@apsayton.demon.co.uk> | Suggitt's Quality Ices
                                           |      Great  Ayton
  Warped A4000 -- "Multimedia by design"   |    North  Yorkshire

On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, Michael wrote:

> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Michael Hensche wrote:
> 
> > you are right. It is not as with decimal digits (1,9 being more than 1,25)
> > but it is a simply growing number behind the decimal point (1.25 being newer
> > than 1.9).
> >
> > Hope you have a backup ;)
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Michael Hensche, Wuppertal
> >
> 
> WHAT? Are you telling me that 1.25 is newer then 1.9? How in the H E
> double hockey sticks does that work out to be correct?

That's correct v1.25 is higher than v1.9 because the dot isn't a decimal 
point. The version number past the dot is simply a counter. i.e. 1.1, 
1.2, 1.3, 1.33, 1.5, etc. v1.09 would be a lower version number than v1.9 
as it would be a minor update to v1.0 while v1.9 would be a major 
upgrade. Get it?

Commodore is Dead,                                                        
Long Live the Amiga.                                         Joe Rothman


       __ Mr. Hardware Computers - 516-234-8110 - 100% Amiga Since 1985
      /// Reach us on the Internet - hardware@insti.physics.sunysb.edu
 __  /// Developers of Video Escort, Freelance Escort, and Retail Escort
 \\\/// A.M.U.G. BBS 516-234-6046 Continuous Service Since March 10th 1986
  \XX/ I Think Therefore I Choose Amiga! - The Computer That Would Not Die!