Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:13:14 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg_version and portversion: ports version comparison weirdness Message-ID: <20111218121314.28622b18@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1ssd3Q64NyxCswpqWDj_qjdgEuvg9B0GcFJHyHccBQyaw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20111218104318.7157327c@cox.net> <CAN6yY1ssd3Q64NyxCswpqWDj_qjdgEuvg9B0GcFJHyHccBQyaw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:06:48 -0800 Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> > wrote: > > Can anyone explain why I'm seeing the following? > > > > libX11-1.4.99.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 < =A0 needs upd= ating (index has > > 1.4.4,1) > > > > How is it that version 1.4.99.1 compares as "less than" 1.4.4,1? > > Since when is 99 < 4? > > > > Is it the PORTEPOCH in 1.4.4,1 that's throwing a monkey wrench into > > the works? > > > > This makes no sense to me. =A0What is the logic being applied here? > > >=20 > Yes. When epoch increments it starts the versioning all over. Largest > epoch value ALWAYS is considered "newer" that any smaller epoch value, > regardless of the rest of the version number. I suspected that was the case, but wasn't sure exactly how the epoch setting was intended to be used. =20 > Epoch is normally used when a port needs to be rolled back to an older > version due to a serious problem caused by the newer version. E.g. > xcb-utils-3.6 broke a LOT of stuff, so the epoch was bumped to 1 and > the version was set back to 3.6. Once a port has an epoch applied, it > will never be removed. Ah, OK. Thank you. I had never really understood the meaning of the PORTEPOCH variable. Nice to finally have it explained. Regards, Conrad --=20 Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111218121314.28622b18>