Proposal: mandatory versioning metadata for modules

[Florian Weimer]

* Alan Bateman:

> On 04/11/2012 12:01, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * David Jorm:
>>
>>> The problem here is "optional" version number. What I'm trying to
>>> achieve is mandatory minimal version metadata.
>> I don't think we'll change version numbers in security updates (just
>> like we don't change sonames and other identifiers), so I'm not
>> convinced this will work.

> Who is "we"?

Anyone in the FLOSS world who releases security updates for stable
release branches.  Unless a new upstream release is imported, such
updates will not change the version number reported by the software.
(Only the external version number for the packaging tool is upgraded.)

> At least for the JDK then the version number is rev'ed at
> each update, including security updates.

And I suspect that there is code out there which checks the version
string and refuses to run. 8-(