| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:48:05AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 31 July 2006 23:57, Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The question I'm trying to ask is this: =foo-1.2.* should obviously |
| 4 |
> > match "foo-1.2.3", but should it also match on "foo-1.2"? It seems more |
| 5 |
> > _useful_ that the 1.2 version would also match, despite not having the |
| 6 |
> > .3 subversion, but perhaps that is not perfectly intuitive from the |
| 7 |
> > syntax. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> portage versions have implicit .0 extension ad infinitum so matching 1.2 would |
| 10 |
> make logical sense as it is really just 1.2.0 ... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Err... wrong actually (try emerge -pv =dev-util/diffball-0.6.5 and |
| 13 |
emerge -pv =dev-util/diffball-0.6.5.0). cpv's don't have implicit .0 |
| 14 |
extensions, and that should _not_ be changed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Making such a change would mean that a pkg manager would have to |
| 17 |
guess which of diffball-0.7.ebuild diffball-0.7.0.ebuild it should |
| 18 |
actually use; the cpv would compare the same, but there *are* two |
| 19 |
ebuilds there, and such a change would make choosing which to use a |
| 20 |
crapshoot. Should *never* introduce spots in version comparisons that |
| 21 |
are indeterminant in results. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Response to this is that "well don't have versions like that", |
| 24 |
which while valid, is ignoring the point- cpvs are exact in their |
| 25 |
version specification, there isn't anything implicit about them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Tag on a (.0)* implicitly, you open up potential issues like above. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives