| 1 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:54:04 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no |
| 4 |
> > reason Gentoo should. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small |
| 7 |
> collection: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And we can handle a lot more of them sensibly than we currently do. We |
| 10 |
can't cover everything, but of these: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> 1_14 -> 1.14 (app-emacs/limit) |
| 13 |
> 1.0pre4 -> 1.0_pre4 (app-emacs/cedet) |
| 14 |
> 12B5 -> 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
These we should handle. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 1.9.1-preview1 -> 1.9.1_pre1 (app-emacs/ruby-mode) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This we could handle easily if there are more things using -preview. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 2.0b6 -> 2.0_beta6 (app-emacs/chess) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This we can't sensibly, since most people using b use it as a 'greater |
| 25 |
than' thing. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> 0.28 -> 28.0 (dev-lang/c-intercal, minor.major) |
| 28 |
> -0.74 -> ?? (SmallEiffel, negative version |
| 29 |
> number) 1.-94.-2 -> ?? (CLC-Intercal, negative |
| 30 |
> components) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
These are upstreams being deliberately silly, so we can ignore them. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> We have to draw the borderline somewhere, and I think our current |
| 35 |
> rules are a reasonable compromise. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Forbidding -rc is not a reasonable compromise... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives