On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:10:56PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
> > _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
> > greater than n
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
> _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
> greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
> equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.
On Sunday 06 of May 2007 10:59:01 Marius Mauch wrote:
> It's supposed to be 4 < 4_p == 4_p0 < 4_p1 now.
And it's good as every other _suffix == _suffix0. No reason to make _p
special.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sunday 06 May 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> > > tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> > > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
> >
On Sun, 6 May 2007 04:37:10 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> > tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
>
> 4 < 4_p < 4_p0 <
On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
4 < 4_p < 4_p0 < 4_p1
how that gets accomplished is up to you Zac ;)
-mike
signature.asc
Description: T
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
>> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
>
> No.
Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
_p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will mak
On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree
Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it.
> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
No.
--
[EMAIL PROTECT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There are a couple of upstream packages that are release with p0
suffixes: ntp [1] and dvd95 [2]. Portage currently considers all
packages to have an implicit _p0 suffix, which means that
ntp-4.2.4_p0 < ntp-4.2.4-r1. Should we ban the _p0 suffix from
