From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 12 09:10:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA58016A4CE; Wed, 12 May 2004 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.celabo.org (gw.celabo.org [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D1E43D1D; Wed, 12 May 2004 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (not verified)) by gw.celabo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DDB5485D; Wed, 12 May 2004 11:10:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E1F896FF36; Wed, 12 May 2004 11:10:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:10:14 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20040512161014.GC9065@madman.celabo.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Kris Kennaway , Garance A Drosihn , Oliver Eikemeier , ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org References: <20040416173857.GA50670@madman.celabo.org> <20040416174418.GC50670@madman.celabo.org> <40802354.3030202@fillmore-labs.com> <20040417152242.GA5543@madman.celabo.org> <20040506190729.GD1777@madman.celabo.org> <20040506212442.GF2316@madman.celabo.org> <20040506213641.GA93452@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040506220855.GI2316@madman.celabo.org> <20040506224427.GA96804@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040506224427.GA96804@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org cc: Garance A Drosihn cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: Oliver Eikemeier Subject: Re: discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961) X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:10:17 -0000 On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:44:27PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 05:08:55PM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > > > Some ports use "p1" for "patchlevel 1", some use it for "prerelease > > > version 1". Since we can't have it both ways, committers need to > > > remember to use pkg_version -t and some careful foresight to avoid > > > running version numbers backwards. However ultimately there will be > > > continue to be mistakes made, even if version monotonicity is somehow > > > enforced at commit-time. > > > > That's true, mistakes will happen. But simpler conventions could make > > the mistakes more obvious. > > > > Strawman version grammar > > > > ::= ( ()? )? '_' ',' > > ::= > > ::= > > ::= ('.' )? > > ::= > > ::= > > ::= 'a'..'z' > > ::= 32-bit integer > > > > > > The components are compared in this order: > > { epoch, major, letter, minor, revision } > > with this exception: > > - Certain combinations represent `prereleases'. These are > > versions with a component, but no component. > > All prerelease versions are less than all non-prerelease versions > > with the same and components. > > > > The troublesome ports we discussed are now tame. > > > > 3.8.1p2 > 3.8p2 > 3.8 > 3.8b > 3.8a > > 1.0.1x2003.09.16 > 1.0x2003.09.16 > > > > Perhaps we want '+' to be a `letter' :-) > > > > Obviously, things like 1.0rc1, 1.0rc2,... (where RC is release > > candidate) would need to become 1.0a, 1.0b... But one exception sure > > seems like a win. Now, what have I left out ? :-) > > openssl 0.9.7d > 0.9.7 Just as it is today, not all `native' versions fit the Ports Collection scheme, and so some adjustment is required. For example, appending a zero works well in this case: 0.9.7d0 > 0.9.7 > > You might even be able to kill the exception if you allow > > and to have different meanings... > > The more special cases, the more mistakes people will make and the > more PORTEPOCH bumps that will need to be made to correct for it. Yes, thus my desire to minimize them. We have many now. I think Oliver's proposal introduces more. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / nectar@celabo.org / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@freebsd.org