Danek Duvall wrote:
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:20:36AM -0800, Ed McKnight wrote:
That's fine--looking at the definition of the fields in pkg(5) I can
see it this way. But I had come to think of the the specific value we
added (.33284) as arbitrary in its own field rather than being part of
the branch and indicating a version. I stand corrected. Is there any
thought of allowing non-integer values anywhere in here?
Nope. We've talked about having a package attribute that would indicate a
"human-readable" version that would allow for things like "3.0.4c" and
"4.0alpha7" and so on, but it wouldn't take part in the version algebra.
Danek
In particular, we were unable to come up w/ unambiguous rules for
mapping version specifications including strings into a strict
ordering, which is essential to perform upgrades correctly.
Is 1.0alpha3 before or after 1.0fcs? just plain 1.0? 1.0Beta?
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
"You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
