discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961)
Jacques A. Vidrine
nectar at FreeBSD.org
Thu May 6 14:24:46 PDT 2004
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:57:48PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I have thought from time-to-time that the version-numbering
> scheme seems a bit hard to follow for some ports.
Yes, in the end I'd really like a simpler scheme.
> I don't
> know if the PR does exactly what I want. The rule of:
> - characters !~ [a-zA-z0-9.] are treated as separators
> (1.0+2003.09.16 = 1.0.2003.09.16). This may not be
> what you expect: 1.0.1+2003.09.16 < 1.0+2003.09.16
> seems like it would cause confusion, for instance. I don't
> know exactly what would be a better tactic, though.
Ports committers must be aware of such gotchas. If we tried
to add another level of structure, for example, it would not be
clear which of the following was the latest version:
1.0.1+2003.09.16 or 1.0+2003.12.25 ?
I think I'd be in favor of disallowing `alternative' separators, just
so such gotchas are more obvious. I mean, the problem is likely more
obvious if you have 1.0.2003.09.16 and 22.214.171.1243.09.16.
Another sticky area is e.g. openssh 3.8p2 versus 3.8.1p2. Under
current rules, 3.8p2 > 3.8.1p2, which is obviously not intended by
the ports committer. A workaround would have been to use 3.8.p2 <
3.8.1.p2. I don't particularly like that, because 3.8 > 3.8.p2 --- it
wouldn't be a problem in practice, since all openssh portable versions
have the `p', but it is ugly.
This is really very similar to the previous thing... there is an
inadvertant attempt to use `p' to add another level of structure to
the version name. The problem is again clearer when it is viewed like
so: 3.8.2 > 126.96.36.199.
Hmm, I guess this might be part of why Oliver wanted to introduce a
special behavior for `pl' ?
Jacques Vidrine / nectar at celabo.org / jvidrine at verio.net / nectar at freebsd.org
More information about the cvs-all