Tor and unusual version numbers

Chris Pickel chpickel at
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version number changed, port outdated should believe that the one in  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...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the macports-dev mailing list