2007/7/29, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I am not saying that you are "questioning something that I believe is > right". I am saying that when versions become alphanumeric, the > decision is 100% arbitrary, and trying to say that one way is right > and one way is wrong is pretty dumb.
Is it also dumb to try to make the code as weird-versioning-proof as possible? > 1.0X and 1.0 1.0X is newer because there is no number after X. > 3.4_a and 3.4.a 3.4_a is newer because 4_a > 4. > 7 and 7_f Same here, 7_f > 7. I guess you're gonna provide some real life examples to prove me wrong. However I think that the rules I'm basing on here (and which I'm proposing) are consistent and allow to determine the order correctly in most cases. At least in more cases than the current pacman's vercmp. For all other cases, maintaines have to modify the original version numbers, there is no other way. -- Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
