| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:42:44PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:39:26 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage |
| 6 |
> > releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as |
| 7 |
> > simple as possible without castrating it's use. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So to you having to understand two slightly different comparison |
| 10 |
> algorithms is simpler than one? Can't agree with that, the simplest |
| 11 |
> defintion for `bar` is `see foo` if `foo` is already known. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Except the majority of folk think that version comparison is strict |
| 14 |
int comparison, when it's not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> And as for the final letter in versions/revisions: If upstream |
| 18 |
> sometimes prefers this naming scheme, why are you so sure that other |
| 19 |
> people (users) won't prefer it? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Folks use [a-z] for version components... which is fine; it's seperate |
| 22 |
from revision however. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Which is saner, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-r1.05.2 is less then -r1.4.2 (ignoring whether using .05 in the rev |
| 27 |
is sane), or -r1.05.2 being -r1.5.2, being greater then 1.4.2 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives