FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-29-2012, 05:58 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default 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
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:01 AM
martin kalcher
 
Default 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You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out of
date.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 ???.
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:02 AM
Angel Velásquez
 
Default 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
1ubC97p0LT3S2umtB3EojJ5HOCOvkCMCtASflSJW7yeCcv3jiE xhSh2R0riQ2d29
3K/56Vhf0hMeNz3OJMgoUVgMicI4ulbWRswERXQqmd27WCqN1odMD Jo6x564uC/9
sALz0wVPkqi5fdxtAStoUBIUaQl7OLsv9EdP9OZrttjvN6SmZf N5LQMWvK0qBMfz
Y+5a2zT8LmkmUPvMO2VUBC9X9LvtALGPmsUILXzohXdJpjIRE3 QsFUmQz1Ie98Vb
Pio4Fk5GIcRmsv6hJZicYVXGHpkyZGUgYImIWDeWu1OAAdaaHq Es9+BU3yYslA8=
=m/KC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:03 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org