this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
478 points (98.8% liked)

linuxmemes

20880 readers
9 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
478
Every time I boot up my computer (lemmy.ca)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I had been wondering about that too so I looked it up and apparently it's just what discover displays whenever there's an update that doesn't change the version number which is things like rebuilds with a newer compiler. Very confusing wording, I feel like just "update of version [version]" would be less confusing

[–] bitfucker 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is why semver is a thing. If a program is released under 1.1.x, and then recompiled with a new compiler, then it can be 1.1.y where y > x

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A recompilation or repackaging of Linux 6.6.6 is still Linux 6.6.6

[–] bitfucker 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, but in the context of flatpak isn't the distribution managed by the developer themselves? Also, in the distro release version case, they usually add something distro specific to differentiate it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

isn't the distribution managed by the developer themselves?

No, most often it's not.
Valve literally just had a fiasco with them not long ago with them falsely marking steam as verified when Valve are not the ones packing the Flatpak.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure about specific packages, but in general a packager may not want to increase the upstream version even if they can do it themselves - for example, they may have made some mistake in the packaging process.

[–] bitfucker 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, and hence my comment on flatpak which turns out is false (that the upstream developer is usually the distributor/packager too). And the other still applies, distro usually adds a specific tag anyway for their refresh. Like that one time xz on rolling debian was named something x.y.z-really-a.b.c.

I think flatpak packagers should also append the specific tag too if that is the case. Like, x.y.z-flatpak-w where w can be the build release version