* Dan Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 01:38]: > On Mon 08 Sep 2008 at 03:02PM, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > * Dan Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-08 21:32]: > > > On Mon 08 Sep 2008 at 02:25PM, Dan Price wrote: > > > > > > > > So this is, in my mind, a bad package version: > > > > > > > > pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Because of the use of 01.01. > > > > > > > > What should we do about this? I was about to putback a change which > > > > correctly detects these bad versions-- but doing so will break all > > > > packaging clients. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? Urgh. > > > > > > I should clarify that the bad version numbers appear to be in > > > 'depend' actions... the actual version of SUNWmkcd is 1.1.38-0.96. > > > > > > Here are the ones I have found thus far: > > > > > > depend fmri=pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] type=incorporate > > > depend fmri=pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] type=incorporate > > > depend fmri=pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED] type=incorporate > > > > Hmm. (This might be where tainting incoming FMRIs was supposed to > > help.) Is there any benefit to having a canonical/non-canonical path > > for constructing FMRIs, where the canonical path corrects the string > > output in all cases? > > > > Can I make a package that has an FMRI with a leading '0'? > > When you say FMRI, I presume you mean package name? With my proposal > for package naming, yes, 0.is.the.loneliest.number would be a valid > package name. Do you want to prevent that? It seems odd to exclude > 0 but include other digits.
No, I meant does pkgsend open [EMAIL PROTECTED] fail? (Such that depend actions are the only source of bad versions.) - Stephen _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
