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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-17-2008, 12:54 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default vercmp discussion

Xavier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
>
>>> nicer, but harder ;-)
>>> See 84283672853350a84d2a71b72dc06e180cad1587, search for 'type
>>> mismatch'.
>>>
>>>
>> Hm. Wrong. With the new vercmp: 1.1 > 1.b (but in ASCII 'b' > '1'),
>> strange. Our problem is at the end of string: '' vs. alpha, as I see,
>> this case was handled after comment /* see if we ran out of segments on
>> one string */
>>
>>
>
> It indeed looks like we just need to handle the case where it runs out
> of segments on one string.
> But we have to handle two cases : run out of segments with the
> -release number or without it.
> So in both cases, I handle it differently if the last remaining
> segment starts with a letter or not.
>
> I am not 100% sure that it will work correctly in every single cases,
> but the logic seems alright, there is no regression on all existing
> vercmp test, and the 4 new tests you posted in an older thread now
> pass fine.
>

You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering

Here is my vote for the best order:
1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c

</massive flame!>




_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 07-17-2008, 01:17 PM
Xavier
 
Default vercmp discussion

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering
>
> Here is my vote for the best order:
> 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c
>

I think I just restored the old behavior, what we had before is :
1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0c < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0

And as far as I can see, it never caused problems to openssh.
Both old and new behaviors worked fine with it, because we always had :
4.3p1 < 4.3p2 < 4.4p1

According to the cvs history :
http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/core/support/openssh/PKGBUILD?root=core&view=log
and the source archives :
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/
the scheme was always X.Y[.Z]pN .

Now, maybe 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b <
1.0c would be better, but we never had this behavior, and implementing
would be (much?) more complex than what we have now.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 07-17-2008, 02:24 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default vercmp discussion

Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>> You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering
>>
>> Here is my vote for the best order:
>> 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c
>>
>>
>
> I think I just restored the old behavior, what we had before is :
> 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0c < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0
>
> And as far as I can see, it never caused problems to openssh.
> Both old and new behaviors worked fine with it, because we always had :
> 4.3p1 < 4.3p2 < 4.4p1
>
> According to the cvs history :
> http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/core/support/openssh/PKGBUILD?root=core&view=log
> and the source archives :
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/
> the scheme was always X.Y[.Z]pN .
>
>

Yeah, poor example... In the v1.2ish era they went 1.2 -> 12.p2 ->
1.2p3 but that was a while ago...

A better example is samba


> Now, maybe 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b <
> 1.0c would be better, but we never had this behavior, and implementing
> would be (much?) more complex than what we have now.
>


I was really trying to point out that you can't satisfy everyone... But
maybe that order is quite good although it would be quite complex.

Allan



_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 07-18-2008, 09:14 AM
"Roman Kyrylych"
 
Default vercmp discussion

2008/7/17 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
> Xavier wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering
>>>
>>> Here is my vote for the best order:
>>> 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c

This is possible only with hardcoding the order, but that's overkill IMO.

>>
>> I think I just restored the old behavior, what we had before is :
>> 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0c < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0
>>

Great!
The most important point was that 1.0 was > than 1.0anything,
and new behavior changed this (which I didn't like because of unneeded
breakage of packages)
So restoring to the old behavior is good.


> Yeah, poor example... In the v1.2ish era they went 1.2 -> 12.p2 ->
> 1.2p3 but that was a while ago...
>
> A better example is samba

samba used to have options=('force') so restoring to old behavior
breaks nothing.


Summary:
[+] for restored old behavior,
[-] for idea of hardcoding the order of version postfixes.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
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 11:32 PM.

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