Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-30 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:03:05 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: >> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you >> > have the time and since you just looked a

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Otavio Salvador
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: >> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have >> > the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you >>

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.23.2257 +0200]: > I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy wasn't ready to > change yet. Wasn't it waiting on implementation of that feature in dak, > which is currently using ~ internally for something else? Yes, APT and dpkg

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]: > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have > > the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you > > could draw up a few lines and send a patch? >

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have > the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you > could draw up a few lines and send a patch? I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy w

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for the confirmation! > > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: > >>> Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains >>> the algorithm for how ver

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
Thanks for the confirmation! martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: >> Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains >> the algorithm for how version numbers are ordered by the archive >> software

Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread Russ Allbery
dpkg --compare-versions provides exactly the ordering that I want, namely that 1.4rc1 < 1.4.0 so by omitting the final patch number in the RC revision I can use the correct upstream version without using epochs or strange-looking version numbers. However, since this is a bit of an edge case, I wan

Re: Is dpkg --compare-versions canonical?

2005-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]: > case, I wanted to double-check and be sure that dpkg --compare-versions is > the canonical ordering for version numbers. I'm pretty sure it is, but > better safe than sorry to check. Yes. > Is there a document anywhere outsi