Re: [PATCH] Framework shlib versioning

[Nicola Pero]

> Just a wilde guess... assume someone releases a framework without the 
> version set. And an automated installer wants to update the 
> no-version-set framework with one that has the version set.
> 
> Simple logic can determine that a version of just A, B, C is probably 
> not a real version, but a mistake. While a return value of 1.0.0 might 
> be a real version and if the framework with version is 0.5.0 the 
> framework is not updated.

Thanks for the comment.

Maybe we should use 0.0.1 as the default version for libraries and
frameworks ?

That makes sure if you release quickly a library without setting the
version, and you later actually release the library with a version set to
something useful (say, 0.5.0 as in your example), the new release (with
version 0.5.0) will always be considered newer than the default one
without a version explicitly set (because that has default version 0.0.1, 
which is lower than 0.5.0 and than any version really).