| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:35:06PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:31:31 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Be aware that if you reuse the vercmp logic, you're getting the |
| 5 |
> > special case float comparison rules, meaning 1.02 is less then 1.1 in |
| 6 |
> > comparison... |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Wouldn't introduce that for rx.y personally unless you've got a good |
| 9 |
> > reason for it. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Do you have a good reason to |
| 12 |
> a) limit -r to X.Y instead of a full version specifier (i.e. -r1.2.3a)? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
While I've said -rx.y, -rx.y(.z)* would fly, avoiding a repeat of the |
| 15 |
base issue for overlays of overlays. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That said, allowig [a-z] is daft imo; it's in version (non-rev) |
| 18 |
components now since it mirrors semi-common upstream practices. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage |
| 21 |
releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as |
| 22 |
simple as possible without castrating it's use. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So.... lecture aside, [a-z] seems a bit a pointless; example above, |
| 25 |
could just do -r1.2.3.1 instead of -r1.2.3a |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> b) use different semantics for [subversion component float |
| 28 |
> comparison rules]? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Better question; why spread it further? For version components |
| 31 |
(nonrev), float makes some sense to match some whacky upstreams, that |
| 32 |
said, -r* is a *ebuild* convention so their isn't any reason to |
| 33 |
continue it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Fairly sure most folk aren't aware of the float comparison rules |
| 36 |
anyways for version components ;) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
~harring |
Archives