De : Simon Kelley <si...@thekelleys.org.uk>
Envoyé : samedi 30 janvier 2021 00:19
> On 26/01/2021 16:55, M. Buecher wrote:
> > On 2021-01-26 17:41, M. Buecher wrote:
> >> On 2021-01-26 00:43, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
> >>> On Jan 25, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The version string generated is "2.84rc2"
> >>>>
> >>>> $ cat dnsmasq-2.84/VERSION
> >>>> (HEAD -> master, tag: v2.84rc2, tag: v2.84, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
> >>>
> >>> This patch solves the problem:
...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually sort is not good at sorting semantic versions [1].
> >> In some cases '-r' will work (2.84, 2.83-post1, 2.83) and in others it
> >> won't (2.84-rc1, 2.84, 2.83). Same applies for sort without '-r'.
> >>
> >> [1] https://semver.org/
> >>
> >> Just my two cents
> >> Maddes
> >
> > Forgot to reference the details for sort's -V|--version-sort option at
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#Implementation-Details
Thanks for providing that good information.
> > Other wrote scripts in other languages like php, Python, etc., e.g.
> > https://gist.github.com/andkirby/54204328823febad9d34422427b1937b
> >
> >
>
> Lonnie's patch exactly reverses f4f400776b3c1aa303d1a0fcd500f0ab5bc970f2
> from 2015, which I guess was to address a problem with a different set
> of version strings.
>
> After a certain amount of trial and error, I've managed to coax sort
> into doing the right thing for version strings which dnsmasq uses.
>
> v2.84 sorts before v2.83, but v2.83 sorts before v2.83rc1 and 2.83rc1
> sorts before v2.83test1
>
>
> It's not pretty:
>
> sort -k1.2,1.5r -k 1.6,1.6 -k1.8,1.9r -k1.10,1.11r
Besides not pretty, it is also not readable.
Plus '-k 1.6,1.6' looks very odd in that line.
| sort -k1.2,1.5r -k1.6,1.7r -k1.8,1.9r -k1.10,1.11r
looks more "having a pattern"
Frankly I think we are repairing at the wrong place.
Instead of handcrafting a sort algoritme, we should repair our
versioning name convention. Tilde to the rescue :-)
$ cat << HERE > old_convention
v2.83
v2.84test1
v2.84test2
v2.84rc1
v2.84rc2
v2.84
HERE
$ cat << HERE > new_convention
v2.83
v2.84~~test1
v2.84~~test2
v2.84~rc1
v2.84~rc2
v2.84
HERE
$ sort --version-sort old_convention
v2.83
v2.84
v2.84rc1
v2.84rc2
v2.84test1
v2.84test2
$ sort --version-sort new_convention
v2.83
v2.84~~test1
v2.84~~test2
v2.84~rc1
v2.84~rc2
v2.84
$
--- a/bld/get-version
+++ b/bld/get-version
@@ -9,9 +9,14 @@
# If we can find one which matches $v[0-9].* then we assume it's
# a version-number tag, else we just use the whole string.
# If there is more than one v[0-9].* tag, sort them and use the
-# first. The insane arguments to the sort command are to ensure
-# that, eg v2.64 comes before v2.63, but v2.63 comes before v2.63rc1
-# and v2.63rc1 comes before v2.63test1
+# last. This needs tilde character in the version, e.g.
+#
+# v2.83
+# v2.84~~test1
+# v2.84~~test2
+# v2.84~rc1
+# v2.84~rc2
+# v2.84
# Change directory to the toplevel source directory.
@@ -31,7 +36,7 @@ else
vers=`cat $1/VERSION | sed 's/[(), ]/,/ g' | tr ',' '\n' | grep ^v[0-9]`
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
- echo "${vers}" | sort -k1.2,1.5r -k 1.6,1.6 -k1.8,1.9r -k1.10,1.11r |
head -n 1 | sed 's/^v//'
+ echo "${vers}" | sort --version-sort | tail -n 1 | sed 's/^v//'
else
cat $1/VERSION
fi
> I'm assuming that people don't want yet another release just to fix
> this, but if I've assumed wrong, let me know.
Lonnie Abelbeck's hint on another release was indeed very humble
and very polite. And yes, he is right with expressing
We do ourself and the rest of mankind a favour by avoiding
version string "2.84rc2" for verion "2.84"
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Silence is hard to parse
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
