=================== BUG #2458: LATEST MODIFICATIONS ================== http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=2458&group_id=11
Changes by: Fernando "Lalo" Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2003-Feb-10 14:13 (Brazil/East) ------------------ Additional Follow-up Comments ---------------------------- How is it correct? 1.0 should be listed first, that's what this request is about. There is a simple algorythim to correctly sort as I described, dpkg implements it and the Debian developers documentation describes it. Let me search for a link... http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-versions.html I was wrong on one account: dpkg sorts 1.0 as smaller than 1.0alpha. This is easy to fix if the algorythim described above is used; it says "all letters sort lower than non-letters", I would add, letters also sort lower than NULL. This is, in my experience, a "coherent" naming policy, similar to what I've seen used in the last 15 years. (I could, and probably will, get around my personal itch by renaming 1.0 to 1.0.0, so don't see this as a personal request.) =================== BUG #2458: FULL BUG SNAPSHOT =================== Submitted by: lalo Project: Savannah Submitted on: 2003-Feb-03 19:18 Category: Download area Severity: 1 - Enhancement Priority: None Bug Group: None Resolution: Works for me Assigned to: yeupou Status: Open Effort: 0.00 Summary: sorting order Original Submission: The sorting order seems to be ascii now. It should sort so that "1.0alpha1" is earlier than "1.0beta1" and both are earlier than "1.0" which is earlier than "1.0.1". A good source for how to do this is Debian's (as seen in dpkg) sorting order. Follow-up Comments ******************* ------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2003-Feb-10 14:13 By: lalo How is it correct? 1.0 should be listed first, that's what this request is about. There is a simple algorythim to correctly sort as I described, dpkg implements it and the Debian developers documentation describes it. Let me search for a link... http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-versions.html I was wrong on one account: dpkg sorts 1.0 as smaller than 1.0alpha. This is easy to fix if the algorythim described above is used; it says "all letters sort lower than non-letters", I would add, letters also sort lower than NULL. This is, in my experience, a "coherent" naming policy, similar to what I've seen used in the last 15 years. (I could, and probably will, get around my personal itch by renaming 1.0 to 1.0.0, so don't see this as a personal request.) ------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2003-Feb-10 13:28 By: yeupou Ok, I seen the error message. But the sorting in itself is ok, no ? We have 1.0a2 pax-1.0a2.tar.bz2 19.16KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03 1.0a1 pax-1.0a1.tar.bz2 15.17KB tar.bz2 2003-02-03 1.0 Which is correct. But for " 1.0alpha1" is earlier than "1.0beta1" and both are earlier than "1.0" which is earlier than "1.0.1" ", I'm not convinced : it means implementing a complex way to sort files by asking the software to interpret version's name. Which is a bloat: we would have to guess every cases possibles, which is not feasible in the long run and which generate extra load. The better solution is for developers to stick to coherent naming policy: and number and alphabet is I think to more coherent choice in latin-based societies. Other arguments? The bug in pax is in fact just the fact that the content of 1.0 is empty. The message would be more explicit but it not right now a priority. ------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2003-Feb-04 12:48 By: lalo http://savannah.nongnu.org/files/?group=opental on the "pax" thread below. It even gives an error message: "Warning: Wrong datatype in sort() call in /subversions/sourceforge/src/savannah/www/files/index.php on line 122" ------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2003-Feb-04 09:17 By: yeupou Can you show me an example of incorrect sorting? ------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2003-Feb-03 19:23 By: lalo I suppose I could try to understand how it does sorting based on the code on cvs, but php reads more or less like an alien language to me (alien as on, from other planet, not other country) CC list is empty No files currently attached For detailed info, follow this link: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=2458&group_id=11
