> 2008/6/20 Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 2008/6/20 Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> You may trust rpm guys, but don't forget that rpm based distros > >> usually use different versioning scheme, so '1.0b versus 1.0' is > >> not a real life example there: > >> alsa-lib-1.0.14-0.4.rc3.fc7.i386.rpm (Fedora) > >> mplayer-1.0-0.20.pre7.0.rh9.rf.i386.rpm (Fedora) > >> > > > > Yeah, I was also thinking about that. > > But what is strange is that in the rpm epoch link I just gave, they > > give an example that matches our situation. > > Not to say that I think the new vercmp is "wrong" and the old one is > "correct", but > > 2008/6/15 Miklos Vajna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 1.0rc < 1.0 -> good > > 1.0pre < 1.0 -> good > > 1.0alpha < 1.0 -> good > > 1.0beta < 1.0 -> good > > 1.0a < 1.0 -> bad > > 1.0b < 1.0 -> bad > > 1.0b (if 'a' stands for alpha) < 1.0 -> good > > 1.0b (if 'b' stands for beta) < 1.0 -> good > > > > so it was 6 good vs 2 bad while now it's 6 bad vs 2 good, if i > > haven't miscounted something. > > the old vercmp also maintains backwards compatibility, > i.e. packages that used to have options=('force') (e.g. samba) will > still have it, > and packages that used to not have options=('force') when using > *{rc,beta,pre} won't need it. > (I didn't counted anything though :-P). > > I mostly dislike the change just because it will require > removing/adding options=('force') to packages > without a real need (IMO). > /me shrugs >
Yes. And in Xavier's link there is a "Problems with Dependencies" paragraph. So it is required to minimize force/epoch in order to calculate 'foo>=1.3-1' dependencies correctly. Question: any foo package with force will satisfy this. Right? Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev