| 1 |
On 02/28/04 Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi there, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> as I was rewriting the code used for verifying and comparing versions |
| 6 |
> I noticed a case that's not covered in the docs, let's use the example |
| 7 |
> where foo has the following versions available: |
| 8 |
> foo-1.0b |
| 9 |
> foo-1.0.1 |
| 10 |
> Now the question is: Which version is considered newer? |
| 11 |
> As I had no idea and though that we didn't have this case in the tree |
| 12 |
> I started a small poll in #gentoo-dev and achieved a 4:0 vote for |
| 13 |
> foo-1.0b being newer than foo-1.0.1, so I went on and implemented it |
| 14 |
> this way. Now while testing I noticed that a) current code handles |
| 15 |
> this the other direction and b) we actually have 2 packages that are |
| 16 |
> affected by this: app-arch/arj and media-video/kavi2svcd. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So I'm sending this mail to get some more opinions about this. If |
| 19 |
> anyone is curious, the actual code and test scripts are on bug #37406. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Man, I feel so stupid now: I explained it all backwards, current portage |
| 22 |
thinks foo-1.0b is newer than foo-1.0.1 while the rewrite thinks the |
| 23 |
opposite. So current portage handles those two packages wrong and the |
| 24 |
rewrite would handle it right (according to the dates in the Changelog) |
| 25 |
Marius |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
PS: I hate it when that happens. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 33 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives