1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:58:01 -0400 |
4 |
> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> If the answer to this is no, that there should always be only one |
6 |
>> ebuild per package version |
7 |
|
8 |
Right. |
9 |
|
10 |
> That's already not the way things work, since different version |
11 |
> strings can be equal versions (and it's illegal to do this), |
12 |
> so it's not relevant to the discussion. |
13 |
|
14 |
This is a design flaw in our versioning system, and it can only occur |
15 |
in some corner cases where version components have leading zeros. It |
16 |
would be much better if any two different version strings had a unique |
17 |
order relation (as for example it is the case with strverscmp(3)). |
18 |
|
19 |
But that's not an excuse for adding another such flaw to our naming |
20 |
scheme. |
21 |
|
22 |
Ulrich |