Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:09:37 -0500 -n
"Dan McGee" <firstname.lastname@example.org> írta:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Nagy Gabor <email@example.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> ---
> >> doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt | 3 ++-
> >> doc/pacman.8.txt | 8 +++++++-
> >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> diff --git a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
> >> index b90d67a..0b1ce64 100644
> >> --- a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
> >> +++ b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt
> >> @@ -214,7 +214,8 @@ similar to `$_basekernver`.
> >> Force the package to be upgraded by a pacman system
> >> upgrade operation, even if the version number would normally not
> >> trigger such an upgrade. This is useful when the version numbering
> >> scheme
> >> - of a package changes (or is alphanumeric).
> >> + of a package changes (or is alphanumeric). See
> >> linkman
> >> + more infomation on version comparisons.
> >> build() Function
> >> diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.txt b/doc/pacman.8.txt
> >> index 5594ac6..08764de 100644
> >> --- a/doc/pacman.8.txt
> >> +++ b/doc/pacman.8.txt
> >> @@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ provide the same functionality as foo will be
> >> searched for. If any package is found, it will be installed.
> >> +
> >> You can also use `pacman -Su` to upgrade all packages that are out
> >> of date. See -<<SO,Sync Options>> below.
> >> +<<SO,Sync Options>> below. When upgrading, pacman performs version
> >> comparison +to determine which packages need upgrading. This
> >> behavior operates as follows: +
> >> + Alphanumeric:
> >> + 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc
> > Sorry guys, I don't like this at all. I think the old behavior was
> > better. And I don't see the reason of this change. We have many
> > packages with alphanumeric version atm: a2ps-4.13c-1,
> > aalib-1.4rc5-1, ... and I'm pretty sure that the expected behavior
> > is that aalib-1.4 should upgrade aalib-1.4rc5-1, like earlier.
> But what is the expected behavior for a2ps with the 'c' in there? Does
> 4.13 come before 4.13b? You are saying "I don't like this" without a
> whole lot of justification and you even gave me a converse example as
> far as I can tell. And I would tend to trust the upstream RPM guys
> quite a bit when it comes to version number ordering, as they deal
> with this a lot.
4.13a < 4.13b < 4.13c < 4.13 (old behavior, my interpretation: alpha,
You may trust rpm guys, but don't forget that rpm based distros usually
use different versioning scheme, so '1.0b versus 1.0' is not a real
life example there:
Could you show me a vercmptest entry?
pacman-dev mailing list