Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-30 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:03:05 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: * Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have the time and since you just looked at the matter

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: case, I wanted to double-check and be sure that dpkg --compare-versions is the canonical ordering for version numbers. I'm pretty sure it is, but better safe than sorry to check. Yes. Is there a document anywhere outside of

Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
dpkg --compare-versions provides exactly the ordering that I want, namely that 1.4rc1 1.4.0 so by omitting the final patch number in the RC revision I can use the correct upstream version without using epochs or strange-looking version numbers. However, since this is a bit of an edge case, I

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
Thanks for the confirmation! martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains the algorithm for how version numbers are ordered by the archive software?

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the confirmation! martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains the algorithm for how version numbers are

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you could draw up a few lines and send a patch? I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you could draw up a few lines and send a patch? I'm

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.2257 +0200]: I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy wasn't ready to change yet. Wasn't it waiting on implementation of that feature in dak, which is currently using ~ internally for something else? Yes, APT and dpkg

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Otavio Salvador
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you could draw