Actually, OPAM is supposed to follow Debian versioning conventions, to the best of my knowledge. However, it does not really matter for compilers, since you always specify the version to create the switch, but it might become a problem in the future, with compilers as packages.

I also think that following a "standard" versioning system (such as the Debian one) is a win, for the future, even if it would break compatibility for a short while. Maybe we could decide to switch for the next release (4.05) ?

--Fabrice

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr> wrote:

> On 2016-08-11, at 18:28, David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it only ever break it for alpha/beta/rc releases, though? Might that be a price worth paying (next time)?

Breaking beta releases is a very big deal: a broken beta is a beta that nobody will test. Moreover, OPAM does not implement the convention you are suggesting, so it would do more harm than good.

-- Damien

--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs