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 Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-20-2008, 08:46 AM
Nagy Gabor
 
Default Add information on version comparison to manpages

> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.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
> linkmanacman[8] for
> + 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.

Bye

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 06-20-2008, 12:21 PM
Nagy Gabor
 
Default Add information on version comparison to manpages

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:09:37 -0500 -n
"Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com> írta:

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.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
> >> linkmanacman[8] for
> >> + 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,
beta, gamma)

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:
alsa-lib-1.0.14-0.4.rc3.fc7.i386.rpm (Fedora)
mplayer-1.0-0.20.pre7.0.rh9.rf.i386.rpm (Fedora)

> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=178798
>

Could you show me a vercmptest entry?

Bye

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 06-20-2008, 12:48 PM
Nagy Gabor
 
Default Add information on version comparison to manpages

> 2008/6/20 Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
> > 2008/6/20 Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>:
> >>
> >> 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:
> >> alsa-lib-1.0.14-0.4.rc3.fc7.i386.rpm (Fedora)
> >> mplayer-1.0-0.20.pre7.0.rh9.rf.i386.rpm (Fedora)
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I was also thinking about that.
> > But what is strange is that in the rpm epoch link I just gave, they
> > give an example that matches our situation.
>
> Not to say that I think the new vercmp is "wrong" and the old one is
> "correct", but
>
> 2008/6/15 Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>:
> > 1.0rc < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0pre < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0alpha < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0beta < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0a < 1.0 -> bad
> > 1.0b < 1.0 -> bad
> > 1.0b (if 'a' stands for alpha) < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0b (if 'b' stands for beta) < 1.0 -> good
> >
> > so it was 6 good vs 2 bad while now it's 6 bad vs 2 good, if i
> > haven't miscounted something.
>
> the old vercmp also maintains backwards compatibility,
> i.e. packages that used to have options=('force') (e.g. samba) will
> still have it,
> and packages that used to not have options=('force') when using
> *{rc,beta,pre} won't need it.
> (I didn't counted anything though :-P).
>
> I mostly dislike the change just because it will require
> removing/adding options=('force') to packages
> without a real need (IMO).
> /me shrugs
>

Yes. And in Xavier's link there is a "Problems with Dependencies"
paragraph. So it is required to minimize force/epoch in order to
calculate 'foo>=1.3-1' dependencies correctly. Question: any foo
package with force will satisfy this. Right?

Bye

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 06-20-2008, 01:03 PM
Nagy Gabor
 
Default Add information on version comparison to manpages

>
> Yes. And in Xavier's link there is a "Problems with Dependencies"
> paragraph. So it is required to minimize force/epoch in order to
> calculate 'foo>=1.3-1' dependencies correctly. Question: any foo
> package with force will satisfy this. Right?
>
Wrong. alpm_depcmp uses versioncmp instead of compate_version, so
doesn't deal with force.

Bye

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 AM.

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