Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 29.06.2012 07:50, schrieb Myra Nelson: >> I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to be updated. >> >> According to < $: man pacman > >> >> You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of >> date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs version >> comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. > > Dan once told me that pacman uses the same version comparing algorithm > that rpm uses (and deb probably uses the same). Just saying that we > didn't invent it, but it is de-facto standard. > Thanks to everyone for your responses. Allan and Florian cleared up any misconceptions I had. I read the section in about using epoch=1 for such situations but it didn't register, hence my question. I rebuilt the packaged with epoch=1 and the message turned to perl local is newer than perl??? repo. @Thomas This is why I love Arch. It helps one learn things that you never would have found out using other distributions. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Am 29.06.2012 07:50, schrieb Myra Nelson: > I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to be updated. > > According to < $: man pacman > > > You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of > date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs version > comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. Dan once told me that pacman uses the same version comparing algorithm that rpm uses (and deb probably uses the same). Just saying that we didn't invent it, but it is de-facto standard. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > pacman sees 1.5000 as being newer than 1.51 as 5000 > 51. So that > warning is correct, because only perl package versioning thinks that > 5000 < 51 ... > I suggest you to have a look at this thread as well: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-February/013512.html Regards, -- Cédric Girard
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Florian Pritz wrote: > On 29.06.2012 07:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >> The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 >> to 1.51. > > In that case you should add epoch=1 to the PKGBUILD. > > -- > Florian Pritz > > > Florian: Thanks for the tip. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Angel Velásquez wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29/06/12 02:58, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >>> I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to >>> be updated. >>> >>> According to < $: man pacman > >>> >>> You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out >>> of date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs >>> version comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. >>> >>> Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < >>> 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < >>> 3.0.0 >>> >>> That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I >>> build some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f >>> XXX::XXX::YYY. The package from the official repos is: >>> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >>> >>> the package I built is: >>> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >>> >>> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra >>> ???. But with the above referenced package I had to list it in >>> the [ IgnorePkg ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the >>> package and still get this warning. >>> >>> "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 >>> to 1.5000-1" >>> >>> No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about >>> the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's >>> because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version >>> after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the >>> package version after the decimal point. The developer changed >>> his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. >>> >>> Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >>> >> >> >> 5000 > 51 >> >> >> > > Yes, some perl packages had that versioning schema, which is > confusing.. that said, it's not a pacman bug. > > - -- > Angel Velásquez > angvp @ irc.freenode.net > Linux Counter: #359909 > http://www.angvp.com > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP7UTaAAoJEEKh2xXsEzutrPcH/iRPp7SyqtS3XfSfnVq0qXGh > 1ubC97p0LT3S2umtB3EojJ5HOCOvkCMCtASflSJW7yeCcv3jiExhSh2R0riQ2d29 > 3K/56Vhf0hMeNz3OJMgoUVgMicI4ulbWRswERXQqmd27WCqN1odMDJo6x564uC/9 > sALz0wVPkqi5fdxtAStoUBIUaQl7OLsv9EdP9OZrttjvN6SmZfN5LQMWvK0qBMfz > Y+5a2zT8LmkmUPvMO2VUBC9X9LvtALGPmsUILXzohXdJpjIRE3QsFUmQz1Ie98Vb > Pio4Fk5GIcRmsv6hJZicYVXGHpkyZGUgYImIWDeWu1OAAdaaHqEs9+BU3yYslA8= > =m/KC > -END PGP SIGNATURE- Angel: I didn't think it was a pacman bug, "Bugs? You must be kidding, there are no bugs in this software", I was making sure I hadn't screwed something up along the way when I built my package. I should have added "Or did I screw something up?". Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 29/06/12 16:01, martin kalcher wrote: >> Am 29.06.2012 07:58, schrieb Allan McRae: >>> On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: > "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 to 1.5000-1" No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the package version after the decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >>> >>> >>> 5000 > 51 >> >> So we dont need this: >> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. >> > > Just to be clear: > > pacman sees 1.5000 as being newer than 1.51 as 5000 > 51. So that > warning is correct, because only perl package versioning thinks that > 5000 < 51 ... > > Allan Allan: Thanks. That was my assumption, but as engineers like to say "When you assume something you make an ass out of u and me. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On 29.06.2012 07:50, Myra Nelson wrote: > The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 > to 1.51. In that case you should add epoch=1 to the PKGBUILD. -- Florian Pritz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On 29/06/12 16:01, martin kalcher wrote: > Am 29.06.2012 07:58, schrieb Allan McRae: >> On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >>> "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 >>> to 1.5000-1" >>> >>> No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the >>> reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the >>> repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal >>> point and my package has two digits then the package version after the >>> decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 >>> to 1.51. >>> >>> Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >>> >> >> >> 5000 > 51 > > So we dont need this: > >>> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. > Just to be clear: pacman sees 1.5000 as being newer than 1.51 as 5000 > 51. So that warning is correct, because only perl package versioning thinks that 5000 < 51 ... Allan
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/06/12 02:58, Allan McRae wrote: > On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >> I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to >> be updated. >> >> According to < $: man pacman > >> >> You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out >> of date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs >> version comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. >> >> Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < >> 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < >> 3.0.0 >> >> That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I >> build some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f >> XXX::XXX::YYY. The package from the official repos is: >> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >> >> the package I built is: >> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >> >> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra >> ???. But with the above referenced package I had to list it in >> the [ IgnorePkg ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the >> package and still get this warning. >> >> "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 >> to 1.5000-1" >> >> No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about >> the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's >> because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version >> after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the >> package version after the decimal point. The developer changed >> his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. >> >> Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >> > > > 5000 > 51 > > > Yes, some perl packages had that versioning schema, which is confusing.. that said, it's not a pacman bug. - -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP7UTaAAoJEEKh2xXsEzutrPcH/iRPp7SyqtS3XfSfnVq0qXGh 1ubC97p0LT3S2umtB3EojJ5HOCOvkCMCtASflSJW7yeCcv3jiExhSh2R0riQ2d29 3K/56Vhf0hMeNz3OJMgoUVgMicI4ulbWRswERXQqmd27WCqN1odMDJo6x564uC/9 sALz0wVPkqi5fdxtAStoUBIUaQl7OLsv9EdP9OZrttjvN6SmZfN5LQMWvK0qBMfz Y+5a2zT8LmkmUPvMO2VUBC9X9LvtALGPmsUILXzohXdJpjIRE3QsFUmQz1Ie98Vb Pio4Fk5GIcRmsv6hJZicYVXGHpkyZGUgYImIWDeWu1OAAdaaHqEs9+BU3yYslA8= =m/KC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Am 29.06.2012 07:58, schrieb Allan McRae: On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to be updated. According to < $: man pacman > You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs version comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < 3.0.0 That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I build some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f XXX::XXX::YYY. The package from the official repos is: perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz the package I built is: perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. But with the above referenced package I had to list it in the [ IgnorePkg ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the package and still get this warning. "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 to 1.5000-1" No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the package version after the decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? 5000 > 51 So we dont need this: >> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???.
Re: [arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: > I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to be updated. > > According to < $: man pacman > > > You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of > date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs version > comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. > > Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 > < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 > Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < 3.0.0 > > That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I build > some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f XXX::XXX::YYY. The > package from the official repos is: > perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz > > the package I built is: > perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz > > I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. But > with the above referenced package I had to list it in the [ IgnorePkg > ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the package and still get > this warning. > > "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 > to 1.5000-1" > > No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the > reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the > repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal > point and my package has two digits then the package version after the > decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 > to 1.51. > > Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? > 5000 > 51
[arch-general] Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to be updated. According to < $: man pacman > You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs version comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < 3.0.0 That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I build some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f XXX::XXX::YYY. The package from the official repos is: perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz the package I built is: perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. But with the above referenced package I had to list it in the [ IgnorePkg ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the package and still get this warning. "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 to 1.5000-1" No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the package version after the decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
