| 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 |
Archives