On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:16:15 +0200 "Jaroslaw Swierczynski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/29, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > When it does things other than it's documented, it's buggy. > > Ever heard of "known bugs"? ;) > That's different than "behaving the we way designed it." > > long long time ago we had this thing called staging and testing, > > where we uploaded versions as bind-9.4.1-1t1, which is the test > > version of bind-9.4.1-1. This logic also works for rc/beta > > packages: gcc-4.2.1rc1-1 will be lower versioned than gcc-4.2.1-1. > > There's logic behind it, so it's not a bug ;) > > Behind rc being lower version - yes, there is. Let's say if a number > is followed directly by a letter, it's higher version. If a number is > followed directly by a letter which is followed directly by a number, > it's lower version. At this point openssh came to my mind but I > checked and there hasn't been a single version without p[1-9] in it. > This makes sense to me. > The problem is this is an arbitrary decision, and I can just as easily come up with package names that break it: Say 1.2.3pre is a prerelease. By your rule above, it should be a higher version than 1.2.3, but it's really a lower version. I suppose we could impose some arbitrary new package versioning scheme on packagers, but it would just be a hack. "Packagers, ensure if your package version contains letters, AND the version comes before a similar numbered version without letters, that you sick an underscore before the letters." seems kinda silly. Although, I would be interested to know how gentoo's code handles versioning, since it's apparently better than pacman for this case. -- Travis _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
