Comment 3 for bug 629727
Revision history for this message
| David Marshall (dave-daltonmaag) wrote Re: Packaging: Clarify Ubuntu Font Family versioning | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
We actually have no objection to the verbosity of a Version string in the format "Version 0.6.7.1", but this naturally leads to the issue that the binary representation would have to be something different - 0.6, 0.671, etc. and this raises two technical problems:
* Despite the limitations of the binary format, Microsoft does issue guidance in the OT spec on how it should be interpreted, so there is the risk that the font would report a different version information to the user depending on how the OS/application fetches it.
* If we choose 0.6 as the binary representation, it would then be unwise to issue any future 0.6.x.x numbered fonts as there's the possibility of version confusion.
A possible way forward which avoids both of these would be, in the case of 0.6.7.1:
Binary representation: 0.671
Version string: "Version 0.671 (0.6.7.1)"
This would be to-spec, robust, consistent, unambiguous, and I think clear to users and maintainers.