On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:42:53AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:47:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>>> * Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '
Michael Biebl writes ("dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now
supports ~ in version numbers]"):
> Reading this announcement I thought, great and wanted to start using
> '~', only to discover that dpkg believes that 0.09+0.1.svn > 0.1~svn.
> 1.) Wai
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 08:30:45AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.11.0012 +0100]:
> > 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)
>
> Why not continue to current versioning scheme until 0.10 is out to
> avoid the epoch
also sprach Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.11.0012 +0100]:
> 1.) Wait for a 0.10 release. I think my users wouldn't be happy ;-)
Why not continue to current versioning scheme until 0.10 is out to
avoid the epoch?
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.'
Hi,
> Adeodato> Depends: foo (>= 0.8), foo (<< 0.9~)
>
> Can I assume that the first one will accept version 0.9~rc1, but the
> second one wont?
You're right. The empty string at the end of '0.9~' counts as zero in
lexical comparison. Thus 0.8 < 0.9~ < 0.9~rc1.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
Seba
> "Adeodato" == Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adeodato> Package: foo-plugin Depends: foo (>= 0.8), foo (<<
Adeodato> 0.9)
Adeodato> Will probably want to move to:
Adeodato> Depends: foo (>= 0.8), foo (<< 0.9~)
Can I assume that the first one will accept versi
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:14PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:42:53AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> > I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician who knows what to
> > do with a number that reads 0.0.9, either. That's why we're software
> > de
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:42:53AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician who knows what to
> do with a number that reads 0.0.9, either. That's why we're software
> developers, not mathematicians.
>
> Or, to put it another way: your numbers are
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:37:47PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 02:21:04AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Roberto C. Sanchez [Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:47:36 -0400]:
> >
> > > Except that the final comparison ignores that the number was to the
> > > right of the decimal,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 07:47:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
> >
> > > that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> > > think is rather odd, beca
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 02:21:04AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez [Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:47:36 -0400]:
>
> > Except that the final comparison ignores that the number was to the
> > right of the decimal, making the zero significant.
>
> Er, read Policy 5.6.12.
>
I have read it.
* Roberto C. Sanchez [Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:47:36 -0400]:
> Except that the final comparison ignores that the number was to the
> right of the decimal, making the zero significant.
Er, read Policy 5.6.12.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Develope
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:12:59AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I have to admit that when choosing 0.09+0.1 as version number I didn't
> check with dpkg --compare-versions because then I would have discovered
> that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> think is rather
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:29:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
>
> > that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> > think is rather odd, because it means that now all version numbers up to
> > 0.9 will be considered < 0
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> If it's not a bug in dpkg, could someone please elaborate on the
> reasoning of this behaviour. I'd be grateful for any comments and
> replies.
It's documented in Policy 5.6.12 [1]. Substrings composed of digits
* Michael Biebl [Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:12:59 +0200]:
> that "dpkg --compare-versions '0.09' '=' '0.9'" yields true, which I
> think is rather odd, because it means that now all version numbers up to
> 0.9 will be considered < 0.09+0.1.
0.09 = 0.9 means:
0 == 0
and
. == .
and
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * martin f. krafft:
>
>> Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony "aj" Towns (and all the other
>> people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
>> announce that dak, our archive management software, finally supports
>> the use of the tilde ('~') in versi
* martin f krafft [Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:58:35 +0100]:
> ... I guess it's time to break the news that Debian now supports the
> ~-character as part of the version number of its packages!
Thanks to all that made this possible.
> However, I am sure you are aware that the feature is to be
> considere
* Don Armstrong:
>> Should we really start using this feature even though it violates
>> section 5.6.12 of the Policy?
>
> Policy was written like that because the changes delineated in
> martin's message had yet to be implemented. It should be updated
> accordingly, but that by itself is no reaso
cc'ing debian-policy for their feedback...
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * martin f. krafft:
>
> > Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony "aj" Towns (and all the other
> > people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
> > announce that dak,
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * martin f. krafft:
>
> > Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony "aj" Towns (and all the other
> > people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
> > announce that dak, our archive management software, finally supports
> > the use of
* martin f. krafft:
> Thanks to the work of our DPL Anthony "aj" Towns (and all the other
> people who have worked on this without my knowledge), I am happy to
> announce that dak, our archive management software, finally supports
> the use of the tilde ('~') in version numbers.
Should we really
22 matches
Mail list logo
