Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:38:57 -0500
From:      "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Cc:        ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/pkg_install-devel Makefile distinfo
Message-ID:  <20040416173857.GA50670@madman.celabo.org>
In-Reply-To: <4080151C.1070200@fillmore-labs.com>
References:  <200404160124.i3G1OlUd067575@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040416163635.GB49780@madman.celabo.org> <4080151C.1070200@fillmore-labs.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:17:16PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> >
> >> Introduce '*' as the lowest possible version number, so that
> >>   >=2.* <3.*
> >> matches all 2.X versions, even alpha.
> >
> >How is this different from  ` >=2.a <3.a ' ?
> 
> It matches 2.a.b, does not match 3.a.b2

*scratches head*   I still don't see a difference.

   2.a <= 2.a.b < 3.a
   2.a <= 3.a   < 3.a.b2

> and is more similar to >=2.X than >= 2.a is. 

How so?  Maybe you mean to say that 2.a > 2.* ?
I find that rather confusing.

> Btw, at least for pkg_install-devel we have 2.pl0 < 2.a.

How did that become broken?  What does 2.pl0 even mean?  Do you have
an example?  I'm certain that is against our naming conventions.

I'm concerned because I have a function that converts a package
version into a 128 bit integer, such that if the package version A is
greater than package version B, then f(A) > f(B).  If the versioning
rules are being changed, I wanna know (and I'd also like to know why).

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine / nectar@celabo.org / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@freebsd.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040416173857.GA50670>