On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 07:13:13PM -0800, Ed McKnight wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether that's deliberate in the coding, but it's
> > decidedly confusing, and therefore busted.
> >
> > Regardless, you're right that the right answer for this particular
> > situation is fat packages.
>
> The situation is not variant content--it's what repo are packages going
> to be drawn from. The fact that one set of packages is debug and has an
> indicator in its version string was the give away that packages were
> being drawn--incorrectly on two counts, IMHO: non-preferred repo; older
> packages--from multiple repositories.
>
> Or, are you saying that the .33284 in one of the version strings (older
> package; non-preferred authority) makes that one appear newer to the
> Planner?
I'm saying that despite the fact that the results you're getting are due to
a somewhat confusing and busted plan creation, you should actually be
avoiding the problem entirely by having debug and non-debug variants to
indicate debug and non-debug content, rather than using package versioning
to do so. You're using a hammer when you should be using a pair of pliers,
and although there is in fact something wrong with the hammer, you should
still be using the pair of pliers.
To answer your last question, though, if I understand it correctly,
2009.4,5.11-0.108.33284
is considered newer than
2009.4,5.11-0.108
regardless of preferredness of authority or the contents of the timestamp.
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
