From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 28 16:51:12 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E706716A4CE
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:51:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de
	[212.202.50.15])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980AB43D1F
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:51:12 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com)
Received: from [172.16.0.13] (helo=localhost)
	by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1BezLR-000MAR-QP; Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:12 +0200
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:51:19 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040628155354.GA21457@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
Message-Id: <612EE128-C923-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
cc: FreeBSD ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
Subject: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: devel/ode
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:51:13 -0000


Am Montag den, 28. Juni 2004, um 17:53, schrieb Erik Trulsson:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 05:25:16PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>> Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
>>
>>> I meant we can treat leading zeros as decreasing factor.
>>> So, x.001 < x.002 < x.01 < x.02 < x.1 < x.2 < x.10 < x.20
>>> In other words - zeros never can dropped except there are only zeros 
>>> in
>>> the number i.e. X = X.0 = X.00 = X.000 etc.
>>>
>>> We can look on a version number part with leading zeros as on a number
>>> with an implicit dot: 001 -> 0.01, 02 -> 0.2 etc. So comparing will 
>>> not
>>> be a problem.
>>
>> As far as I understand your proposal this will give us
>>
>>   0.005 < 0.05 < 0.039 < 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 0.50 < 0.390 < 0.500
>
> I understand his proposal rather as giving
>
> 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 = 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 050 < 0.390 < 0.500
>
> I.e. IF (but only if) a part of the version number starts with a zero
> the whole is just treated as a decimal number, unlike the current
> scheme where we always treat it as two integers separated by a dot (and
> leading zeros in a version number part are thus irrelevant currently.)
>
> I don't know which scheme is best.  The current one has the advantage
> that it is simple and easy to describe, but it can give surprising
> results if you think of the version number as an actual *number*.

You shouldn't, or you have to think of "4.6.2" as a `number'...