On 3/26/07, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/26/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:16:51 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 3/26/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I know there were some discussions on our revision token when we > > >> introduced revisions on recipe, but I don't remeber the conclusion and > > >> why > > >> some decisions were made. One such case is the Imagemagick recipe. The > > >> Imagemagick developers release several revisions of each version, last > > >> version atm being 6.3.3-1, while we have 6.3.3-0 in the recipe store. > > >> However the recipe is named 6.3.3_0, i.e. the revision dash is replaced > > >> with an underscore and I can't remember the real reason behind that > > >> decision, if there ever were such a decision. Lucas remembered something > > >> about it being because it was easier (less visually confusing) to use > > >> underscores when the deelopers released revisions as we have dashes in > > >> our > > >> revisions, e.g. ImageMagick 6.3.3_0-r1 instead of 6.3.3-0-r1. However > > >> this > > >> breaks the update of the recipe as the dash is used in the URL in the > > >> recipe, so NewVersion tried to substitue 6.3.3_0 with 6.3.3-1 when I ran > > >> 'NewVersion imagemagick 6.3.3-1'. Because of that I think we should > > >> reise > > >> the decision of substituting dashes with underscore, as I believe > > >> functionality should come before visual comfort. > > > > > > We can replace underscores with "[-_]" in the source regex when doing > > > the replacement in NewVersion; that would fix it (no access to CVS > > > right now to do it, though). > > > > > How do you mean then? The problem would be that any information about > > whichever of dash and underscore was original used by the developers, so > > then it would break applications that use underrscores in their > > revisions/versions if I'm not missing something here. > > Ahhh, I see. You're right. My proposed solution would succeed finding > the version number in the string, but wouldn't know what's the right > thing to put instead. Well, I think that using the "-rX" suffix > everytime, we'd be able to use both _ and - in version numbers with no > problems (even in the degenerate "1.0-r2-r3" case, which would mean > the third revision of version "1.0-r2"... just need to check if all > regexes are correct to support this).
Seems reasonable. -- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
