Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:44:27 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961) Message-ID: <20040506224427.GA96804@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040506220855.GI2316@madman.celabo.org> References: <4080151C.1070200@fillmore-labs.com> <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> <p0602040bbcc04f36c2aa@[128.113.24.47]> <20040506212442.GF2316@madman.celabo.org> <20040506213641.GA93452@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040506220855.GI2316@madman.celabo.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
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
>
> <version> ::= <major> (<letter> (<minor>)? )? '_' <revision> ',' <epoch>
> <major> ::= <dotted>
> <minor> ::= <dotted>
> <dotted> ::= <integer> ('.' <dotted>)?
> <revision> ::= <integer>
> <epoch> ::= <integer>
> <letter> ::= 'a'..'z'
> <integer> ::= 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 <letter> component, but no <minor> component.
> All prerelease versions are less than all non-prerelease versions
> with the same <epoch> and <major> 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
> You might even be able to kill the exception if you allow
> <uppercase-letter> and <lowercase-letter> 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.
Kris
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFAmr/LWry0BWjoQKURAifdAJ9+9+UFBI5i8yReSmbrdcATTZrbogCgkFAt
6ckgmDTz8R++m6wO9hP65jA=
=dpZ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040506224427.GA96804>