2007/7/29, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> X was "eXperimental" and is before 1.0
For me, it a release is pre, alpha, beta, rc, whatever, there is a
digit after the suffix. I mean, there is no 1.0pre, there is 1.0pre1.
But if there is 1.0pre, a maintainer should add "1" himself. It's
simple.
On 7/29/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1.0X and 1.0
> 1.0X is newer because there is no number after X.
X was "eXperimental" and is before 1.0
> > 3.4_a and 3.4.a
>
> 3.4_a is newer because 4_a > 4.
These are the same version. I just renamed the tarball.
> > 7 and 7_f
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
On 7/29/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/29, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Again, you look like a fool.
>
> Because I'm questioning something you are convinced you're right
> about? Do you know what discussions are for? First you discuss
> something, get op
On 28/07/07, Benoit Myard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, we could argue for a whole year and come up with a completly
> different conclusion but I hope we won't.
Enough of that.
--
Benoit Myard
___
arch mailing list
arch@archlinux.org
http://archl
2007/7/29, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Again, you look like a fool.
Because I'm questioning something you are convinced you're right
about? Do you know what discussions are for? First you discuss
something, get opinions of others, and then you draw a conclusion
which helps you in, like
2007/7/29, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Say 1.2.3pre is a prerelease. By your rule above, it should be a
> higher version than 1.2.3, but it's really a lower version.
All you'd need to do is to add 1 to this version, that is 1.2.3pre1.
It's really a small price comparing to what maintain
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:16:15 +0200
"Jaroslaw Swierczynski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/29, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > When it does things other than it's documented, it's buggy.
>
> Ever heard of "known bugs"? ;)
>
That's different than "behaving the we way designed it."
On 7/28/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ vercmp 3.0.25 3.0.25b
> 1
>
> Not buggy, eh?
Again, you look like a fool. I can show you hundreds of apps that use
"b" to mean beta. Beta comes before the real release. So should my
"1.0 beta" release versioned "1.0b" supersede "1
On 7/28/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/28, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that's just untrue. Looking at the two version numbers,
> > I have no idea which is supposed to be newer without reading the
> > original poster's comments; certainly
On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 11:58:57PM +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> 2007/7/28, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > The package should have been built with 9.4.1P1 and then it would be
> > fine.
>
> $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1P1
> 1
> $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1_P1
> 1
> $ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.2
> -1
>
>
~|519> vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1P1
1
~|520> vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1p1
1
~|521> vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1.p1
1
~|522> vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1.0p1
-1
~|523> vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1.1
-1
i'm for replacing the "P" with a "."
- D
--
.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´
°° °
2007/7/29, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> When it does things other than it's documented, it's buggy.
Ever heard of "known bugs"? ;)
> long long time ago we had this thing called staging and testing, where
> we uploaded versions as bind-9.4.1-1t1, which is the test version of
> bind-9.4.1-
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 23:47 +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> 2007/7/28, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > It's documented behaviour, it's not buggy.
>
> One doesn't exclude the other.
When it does things other than it's documented, it's buggy.
>
> > The package should have been bu
2007/7/28, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The package should have been built with 9.4.1P1 and then it would be
> fine.
$ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1P1
1
$ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1_P1
1
$ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.2
-1
That's not all. Check this out:
$ vercmp 9.4.1 9.4.1.P1
1
Samba? Here:
$ vercmp 3.0.25 3.0.25
On 28/07/07, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but that's just untrue. Looking at the two version numbers,
> I have no idea which is supposed to be newer without reading the
> original poster's comments; certainly pacman would have no idea
> either. What the heck does "P1" stan
2007/7/28, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just untrue. Looking at the two version numbers,
> I have no idea which is supposed to be newer without reading the
> original poster's comments; certainly pacman would have no idea
> either. What the heck does "P1" stand for?
2007/7/28, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> It's documented behaviour, it's not buggy.
One doesn't exclude the other.
> The package should have been built with 9.4.1P1 and then it would be
> fine. Pacman does weird things to underscores and lowercase alphanumeric
> version numbers, they're c
On 7/28/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd say it's those packages' maintainers fault that they didn't make
> up for pacman's bug ;) Seriously, pacman's versiom comparing functions
> is buggy. Until it's fixed, such packages should be built with
> force=y.
I'm sorry, but th
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 23:24 +0200, Jaroslaw Swierczynski wrote:
> I'd say it's those packages' maintainers fault that they didn't make
> up for pacman's bug ;) Seriously, pacman's versiom comparing functions
> is buggy. Until it's fixed, such packages should be built with
> force=y.
It's document
I'd say it's those packages' maintainers fault that they didn't make
up for pacman's bug ;) Seriously, pacman's versiom comparing functions
is buggy. Until it's fixed, such packages should be built with
force=y.
--
Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www.archlinux.org | www.juvepoland.com
Hi list,
Looks like there's a problem with version numbers handling in pacman.
It assumes bind 9.4.1_P1-1 (in the repo) is older than 9.4.1-1
(installed) and prevents me from updating it which is stupid since the
version in the repo is suposed to fix a security issue in bind (same
remark applies t
22 matches
Mail list logo
