Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On 21/09/2015 21:45, Taahir Ahmed wrote: > > Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec to > work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of > versions into the ebuilds? > > Then, a version identifier would just be a unique string. > > An ebuild

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:45:19 -0500 Taahir Ahmed wrote: > Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec > to work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of > versions into the ebuilds? That idea was what lead to Zynot... --

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec to work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of versions into the ebuilds? Then, a version identifier would just be a unique string. An ebuild would declare which version strings it succeeds. Then even

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Dnia 2015-09-20, o godz. 16:40:16 konsolebox napisał(a): > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456 > > > > Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456 > > Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox > napisał(a): >>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> >>So what would pkg-1.4_alpha1_p20 look like if you convert it to a form >> >>that uses ~? >> > >> > You shouldn't start with old gentoo version but with whatever upstream >> > uses. The goal is that the scheme is really

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52 > konsolebox napisał(a): > >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > And similarly to the current solution it's full of silly

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Dnia 19 września 2015 09:43:14 CEST, konsolebox napisał(a): >On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny >wrote: >> Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52 >> konsolebox napisał(a): >> >>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, konsolebox wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> And to save you some time reading: the rpm implementation is simpler >> and more flexible. It's free of stupidities like hardcoded suffix >> lists

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456 Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox napisał(a): >On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Michał Górny >wrote: >> Dnia 19 września 2015 12:27:32 CEST, konsolebox

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On 09/18/2015 01:24 PM, konsolebox wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode > wrote: >> Are you stating this is for package epochs? > > I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package > versions, yes. > > The current specification I

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On 19 September 2015 at 10:09, konsolebox wrote: > As for A6FGHKE and TRIAL, it's impossible to tell their actual level > values so even if we choose to map them lexicographically, we would > still not be able to use a universal algorithm that could tell how it > affects the

[gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider revising the current specification. Note: Assigning default values can be bypassed depending on

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Dnia 18 września 2015 11:32:15 CEST, konsolebox napisał(a): >This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to >me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it >could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:16:43 +0800 konsolebox wrote: > If you avoid trying to adopt versioning practices which are far from > practical and very far from common it is (as proven by the example > code). The workaround for such rare cases should be done on the > ebuild's

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: > Are you stating this is for package epochs? I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package versions, yes. The current specification I also mentioned is this:

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > On 09/18/2015 01:24 PM, konsolebox wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode >> wrote: >>> Are you stating this is for package epochs? >> >> I'm sorry but I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Gentoo is a distribution that incorporates heterogeneous software packages, each of which may have their own versioning scheme. We kinda have to treat the upstream version as an opaque blob because of this. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think it's ok to screw with upstream supplied

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52 konsolebox napisał(a): > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > Dnia 18 września 2015 11:32:15 CEST, konsolebox > > napisał(a): > >>This is what an ideal and simple

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Vladimir Smirnov wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:16:43 +0800 > konsolebox wrote: > >> If you avoid trying to adopt versioning practices which are far from >> practical and very far from common it is (as proven by the

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:32:15 +0800 > konsolebox wrote: >> This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to >> me. > > Versioning isn't ideal and simple. If you

Re: [gentoo-dev] JFYIOR: A Simple Package Versioning Spec

On 09/18/2015 04:32 AM, konsolebox wrote: > This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to > me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it > could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider > revising the current specification. > > Note: