| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:27:19PM +0000, Philip Walls wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:34:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 +0000 Philip Walls <malverian@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > wrote: |
| 5 |
> > | This argument here can also be applied to the -r#.# solution you |
| 6 |
> > | mentioned, so I think the decision between -r#.# and -local# is really |
| 7 |
> > | just a matter of aesthetics. I'm on the fence as to which is best. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The -r#.#.#.# solution is cleaner IMO. With -local# you'd still need to |
| 10 |
> > handle -local#.# or -local#-reallylocal-# to allow users to override |
| 11 |
> > overlays that override the main repository. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I have a feeling the above is a solution waiting for problem, but from |
| 15 |
> a flexibility standpoint I actually really like it :) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Adding this kind of revision number will convolute the version |
| 18 |
> comparison a bit, and the dep calculation will have to be patched to |
| 19 |
> allow this (currently it only allows for real floating point numbers). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think we'll want to refactor the vercmp() so that there is a |
| 22 |
> separate function for comparing version numbers (eg. 1.5 vs. 1.100 vs. |
| 23 |
> 1.02) which the revision comparison can use as well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Be aware that if you reuse the vercmp logic, you're getting the |
| 26 |
special case float comparison rules, meaning 1.02 is less then 1.1 in |
| 27 |
comparison... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Wouldn't introduce that for rx.y personally unless you've got a good |
| 30 |
reason for it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
~harring |
Archives