Additional range types for versions conforming to the RPM and Debian versioning standards

[andrewpollock]

Would it make sense to add additional range types for RPM and dpkg/Debian versioning standards?

The benefit being that the expectations and treatment of these ranges would be explicit.

References:

• https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
• https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
• https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-version

[jasinner]

Makes sense to me. A reference implementation of comparing RPM versions can be found in the RPM source code.

For clients using Go there is an implementation here: https://github.com/knqyf263/go-rpm-version

[oliverchang]

Hmm, the intention was that the ECOSYSTEM range would cover these. There are a lot of different versioning schemes out there, and we made the explicit decision to avoid having to catalogue all of these, particularly when they're tied to the underlying ecosystem already.