| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
| Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> posted |
| 6 |
| 20080330093946.GA9305@××××××××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on |
| 7 |
| Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:39:46 -0700: |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
|> No need to ban 1.00; it's already banned by PMS- quoting from names.tex: |
| 10 |
|> |
| 11 |
|> A version starts with the number part, which is in the form |
| 12 |
|> \t{[0-9]+($\backslash$.[0-9]+)*} (a positive integer, followed by zero |
| 13 |
|> or more dot-prefixed positive integers). |
| 14 |
|> |
| 15 |
|> Note the 'positive integers'; so 1.00 is actually blocked by PMS. That |
| 16 |
|> said, that same text seems to invalidly ban 1.0 also. |
| 17 |
| |
| 18 |
| Well, "positive integer" as used must include zero also, or by that |
| 19 |
| definition, 0.xx style versions would be disallowed as well. That just |
| 20 |
| wouldn't be sane if we're to keep anything even /close/ to upstream |
| 21 |
| version mapping, so "positive" as used here must include 0 (and does by |
| 22 |
| the literal ranged definition), and both 0.xx and x.00 are therefore |
| 23 |
| defined as allowed, unless there's a further restriction elsewhere that |
| 24 |
| hasn't been quoted. |
| 25 |
| |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
"non-negative integer" must've been meant. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- -- |
| 30 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
| 31 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkfvqZAACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xPsQCbBNKtynU9aSdr3uY+x+sDt4tR |
| 37 |
0SQAoK/sGruoV0qr8wyfB2qNPy0SzH7q |
| 38 |
=QsyO |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives