Tor and unusual version numbers
chpickel at stwing.upenn.edu
Fri Apr 27 08:18:08 PDT 2007
On 27 Apr, 2007, at 09:24, James Berry wrote:
> - The only issues I know of with rpm_vercomp are that it doesn't
> necessarily know how to deal with something like a change from an
> alpha to a numeric component. Is 1.0.b2 greater than or less than
> 1.0.1, or greater or less than 1.0, as an off-the-cuff example?
> Even upstream maintainers might not agree on the answers. I believe
> rpm_vercomp works consistently in such cases, but it can't outguess
> the system.
This is something that rpm-vercomp handles a bit weirdly, I believe:
if it comes across a situation where one version has an alphabetic
component but the other has a numeric, it always returns -1. In other
words, 1.0.b2 < 1.0.1, but also 1.0.1 < 1.0.b2. So, whichever way the
version number changed, port outdated should believe that the one in
the Portfile is newer.
Not exactly intuitive, but probably the most functional system.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070427/04933d63/PGP.bin
More information about the macports-dev