On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Xavier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'll admit defeat, I tried. :) >> >> Can someone put together a single revert patch to take care of this? I >> know it took us at least two commits to get the vercmp code updated, >> so we will probably need to do some manual work to get this reverted. >> Obviously the vercmptest script should stay, and perhaps we should add >> the proposed tests from Nagy to the mix. >> >> If people do see any improvements that can be "backported" to the >> previous code, that would be good to have. >> > > I just looked a bit at the history of rpmvercmp function, in the git repo : > http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=history;f=lib/rpmvercmp.c;h=0cdcc686608abc9de6115e7d4a6f7d8c0f2d8cad;hb=HEAD > > So the rpmvercmp in 4.0.4 (which I finally found here : > http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/Mirrors/ftp.rpm.org/rpm/dist/rpm-4.0.x/rpm-4.0.4.tar.gz > ) is the same as the version from 2002 in that git repo : > http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=blob;f=lib/rpmvercmp.c;hb=076a6e29c5c8a35a5f78ae2a15339d030cfe2fdf > > And then very little changed between 2002 and now : > http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=blobdiff;f=lib/rpmvercmp.c;h=0cdcc686608abc9de6115e7d4a6f7d8c0f2d8cad;hp=27969d47ead9576e091e0f8ba99d2e692a47c747;hb=HEAD;hpb=076a6e29c5c8a35a5f78ae2a15339d030cfe2fdf > > There were some slight behavior changes, but not much, and our code > diverted enough that they don't seem to be relevant. > Anyway, again, our usage is different, so we should only care about > problems we have with our version schemes, not their. Otherwise we are > going to fix irrelevant cases, and risk breaking the relevant ones. > > Though I found one fix which is interesting : > /* if they are equal because there might be more segments to */ > /* compare */ > rc = strcmp(one, two); > - if (rc) return rc; > + if (rc) return (rc < 1 ? -1 : 1); > > > Anyway my proposal is to just copy/paste the good old working vercmp > code we had, with only the above fix.
Ahh, yes. We do want vercmp to return -1, 1, or 0, and not negative, positive, or 0. The old one didn't always do this. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev