Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ioannis Aslanidis <aslanidis@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: explicit -r0 in ebuild filename
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:38:17
Message-Id: ea440b1d0803300838s1b893663s4fbec41073202471@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: explicit -r0 in ebuild filename by "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)"
1 If you are asking about mathematic stright definition:
2
3 negative integer: -inf,...,-1
4 positive integer: 1,...,inf
5 natural: 0,...,inf
6
7 The group of natural numbers includes the positive integers and zero.
8 That is the definition in most places in the world; however, in the
9 United States and a few more countries, non-negative integers is how
10 the lot is called.
11
12
13 On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
14 <hkBst@g.o> wrote:
15 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
16 > Hash: SHA1
17 >
18 > Duncan wrote:
19 > | Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> posted
20 > | 20080330093946.GA9305@××××××××××××××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on
21 > | Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:39:46 -0700:
22 > |
23 > |> No need to ban 1.00; it's already banned by PMS- quoting from names.tex:
24 > |>
25 > |> A version starts with the number part, which is in the form
26 > |> \t{[0-9]+($\backslash$.[0-9]+)*} (a positive integer, followed by zero
27 > |> or more dot-prefixed positive integers).
28 > |>
29 > |> Note the 'positive integers'; so 1.00 is actually blocked by PMS. That
30 > |> said, that same text seems to invalidly ban 1.0 also.
31 > |
32 > | Well, "positive integer" as used must include zero also, or by that
33 > | definition, 0.xx style versions would be disallowed as well. That just
34 > | wouldn't be sane if we're to keep anything even /close/ to upstream
35 > | version mapping, so "positive" as used here must include 0 (and does by
36 > | the literal ranged definition), and both 0.xx and x.00 are therefore
37 > | defined as allowed, unless there's a further restriction elsewhere that
38 > | hasn't been quoted.
39 > |
40 >
41 > "non-negative integer" must've been meant.
42 >
43 > - --
44 > Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
45 > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
46 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
47 > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
48 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
49 >
50 > iEYEARECAAYFAkfvqZAACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xPsQCbBNKtynU9aSdr3uY+x+sDt4tR
51 > 0SQAoK/sGruoV0qr8wyfB2qNPy0SzH7q
52 > =QsyO
53 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
54 >
55 > --
56 > gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list
57 >
58 >
59
60
61
62 --
63 Ioannis Aslanidis
64
65 <deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0x47F370A0
66 --
67 gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>