| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I |
| 3 |
> thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3. |
| 4 |
> This wouldn't be a bug problem if it could be used as a general glob |
| 5 |
> operator like with =foo-1.2.*, but it's use is strictly limited to the |
| 6 |
> above version (can only be used when a version component separator may |
| 7 |
> appear), so atm there is no facility to reliably lock an atom at a |
| 8 |
> specific version component when you have to account for multi-digit |
| 9 |
> components. |
| 10 |
> Now the question is if we want this glob-style behavior or not. From |
| 11 |
> the code comments it seems to be intentional, |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Intentional in the sense that it was originally implemented as a slice |
| 14 |
comparison (likely due to that being far simpler then mangling older |
| 15 |
versions of ver_cmp). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>=2.1 ver_cmp can be mangled easy enough now though. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> but I'd suspect that many |
| 20 |
> people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full |
| 21 |
> version components |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I |
| 24 |
interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally, once |
| 25 |
the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're reminded |
| 26 |
"yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to dev to get |
| 27 |
consensus" folks promptly forget about it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much of an |
| 30 |
issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the change). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> (as that is the much more common use case). Doesn't |
| 33 |
> help that the atom description in ebuild(5) doesn't specify the |
| 34 |
> behavior for this case either, |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> "* means match any version of the package so long as the specified |
| 37 |
> base is matched" |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> can be read both ways. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Opinions? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Should be discussed on -dev, not here imo; they're the ones affected |
| 44 |
by it (it's essentially their standard after all). Changing it? |
| 45 |
Sure, but it's a required eapi bump; portage chokes on .* now. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I'd also not bump eapi just for one change; there is a boatload of |
| 48 |
other stuff that's waiting for an apt time to be pushed out together. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
~harring |
Archives