Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:09:16 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> Cc: FreeBSD ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: devel/ode Message-ID: <9D3E74F8-C9A3-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <40E11E4C.4040006@ciam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Dienstag den, 29. Juni 2004, um 09:46, schrieb Sergey Matveychuk: > Erik Trulsson wrote: > >> I understand his proposal rather as giving >> 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 = 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 050 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > Not exectly. > 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 < 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 0.50 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > Ending zoros can't be droped. Ok, it was fun discussing this, and I admit it's a nifty idea. The problems with that are: - it breaks backward compatibility (and tools like portupgrade have to be adapted to the new rules) - it is of limited use, e.g. only when leading zeroes in a version number are dropped *and* the resulting version number is smaller than the previous one. - it is another addition the the already non-trivial version number parsing rules So, do we expect enough benefits from this change to actually accept the costs, or do we just bump the PORTEPOCH from time to time (or force ports to use .500 instead of .5 when the previous version was .039)? Btw, normally portlint should warn you of such issues when there is a more or less up-to-date INDEX on the machine. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9D3E74F8-C9A3-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914>