On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:58:57PM +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote: > 2007/7/28, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > The package should have been built with 9.4.1P1 and then it would be > > fine. > > $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1P1 > 1 > $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1_P1 > 1 > $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.2 > -1 > > That's not all. Check this out: > > $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1.P1 > 1 > > Samba? Here: > > $ vercmp 3.0.25 3.0.25b > 1 > > Not buggy, eh?
I agree that Jan wasn't right about the 9.4.1P1 statement, but I disagree about the buggy assertion. If I give you a package version 1.2.3a1 is this newer than version 1.2.3? What about 1.2.3p1? What about 1.2.3b? The current implementation assumes that any letters after a number come before that number (3a is newer than 3). This works really really well when you want to package alpha, beta, or rc packages, but not very well when developers release patch level b, P1, +1, NG_, or _R1b. How do you propose we change vercmp to handle both cases flawlessly? Jason
pgpdHcUIrcyM9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
