Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 <
>> 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:
>> the package I built is:
>> 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.
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Linux Counter: #359909
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----