Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 13:19, Brian Harring wrote: On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:48:05AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 31 July 2006 23:57, Drake Wyrm wrote: The question I'm trying to ask is this: =foo-1.2.* should obviously match foo-1.2.3, but should it also match on foo-1.2? It seems more _useful_ that the 1.2 version would also match, despite not having the .3 subversion, but perhaps that is not perfectly intuitive from the syntax. portage versions have implicit .0 extension ad infinitum so matching 1.2 would make logical sense as it is really just 1.2.0 ... Err... wrong actually (try emerge -pv =dev-util/diffball-0.6.5 and emerge -pv =dev-util/diffball-0.6.5.0). cpv's don't have implicit .0 extensions, and that should _not_ be changed. when it comes to version comparing, there is implicit .0 extension ... which is what we're talking about here, comparing versions -mike pgpQJGnVPTQDE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
Brian Harring wrote: Response to this is that well don't have versions like that, which while valid, is ignoring the point- cpvs are exact in their version specification, there isn't anything implicit about them. This sounds to me like 'division through zero doesn't make sense, but i've still got the right to do it'. Really, if anybody is ever going to release 1.0 and 1.0.0 along each other, that person is completely on crack. You can't do 2/0, either can you have 1.0 and 1.0.0 being different versions. They should be the same. That being said, which one is higher? Tag on a (.0)* implicitly, you open up potential issues like above. Nonissue, really. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Developer -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3. snip but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full version components Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally, once the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're reminded yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to dev to get consensus folks promptly forget about it. You mean a consensus on -dev like the one regarding the Sunrise project? Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much of an issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the change). Or ignoring it because it's not worth the heartache. Or they feel it to be more likely that their input will be rejected by devs who just don't feel like working on it, but also don't want their babies touched by foreign hands. See Bug #69343 and everything marked as a dupe against it for a fine example of that mentality. -- my other signature is witty pgpe1gDb7STlR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote: Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3. snip but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full version components Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally, once the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're reminded yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to dev to get consensus folks promptly forget about it. You mean a consensus on -dev like the one regarding the Sunrise project? Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much of an issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the change). Or ignoring it because it's not worth the heartache. Or they feel it to be more likely that their input will be rejected by devs who just don't feel like working on it, but also don't want their babies touched by foreign hands. See Bug #69343 and everything marked as a dupe against it for a fine example of that mentality. Either you're trolling, or your whinging (bluntly). Either way, it's not even remotely related to an EAPI bump, so kindly don't thread hijack (got enough of that going on in sunrise thread already). ~harring pgp7SsbyS9hEA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote: Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3. snip but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full version components Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally, once the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're reminded yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to dev to get consensus folks promptly forget about it. You mean a consensus on -dev like the one regarding the Sunrise project? Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much of an issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the change). Or ignoring it because it's not worth the heartache. Or they feel it to be more likely that their input will be rejected by devs who just don't feel like working on it, but also don't want their babies touched by foreign hands. See Bug #69343 and everything marked as a dupe against it for a fine example of that mentality. Either you're trolling, or your whinging (bluntly). Mostly trolling, but it's a valid point. The technical issue is not nearly as daunting as the political one. -- There are problems in today's world that cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them. -- Albert Einstein pgpXYAQ0Ml8is.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:12:46PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote: Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote: Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't work as I thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as well as foo-1.2.3. snip but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption and expect it to only match full version components Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally, I interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally, once the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're reminded yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to dev to get consensus folks promptly forget about it. You mean a consensus on -dev like the one regarding the Sunrise project? Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much of an issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the change). Or ignoring it because it's not worth the heartache. Or they feel it to be more likely that their input will be rejected by devs who just don't feel like working on it, but also don't want their babies touched by foreign hands. See Bug #69343 and everything marked as a dupe against it for a fine example of that mentality. Either you're trolling, or your whinging (bluntly). Mostly trolling, but it's a valid point. The technical issue is not nearly as daunting as the political one. And not doing something because of fear of screaming/politics means that those using such tools get their way (one of the few cases where it pays to be a stubborn bastard who'll kick back). Meanwhile, this _is_ thread hijacking, getting back to the subject is a better use of folks time and channels normally sane s/n ratio. Besides... People aren't going to bitch about this one, it's a matter of trying to keep people in the loop rather then portages usual modus operandi of just slipping changes in, with portage devs being the ones knowing about it (and yes, I was guilty of it in the past too). :) This *should* require an EAPI bump, so at the very least repoman will need a few tweaks, and people will need to be educated a bit re: the fact the version op. behaves differently for EAPI0 vs EAPI1. ~harring pgpWaeQw2fRNp.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 31 July 2006 21:37, Drake Wyrm wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: short term we're gaining functionality: simply add .* Just making sure that I understand you... Given the original example atom of =foo-1.2*, which currently matches foo-1.2, and his objection that =foo-1.2.* does _not_ match foo-1.2, you're suggesting that the matching engine be modified such that =foo-1.2.* _will_ match foo-1.2. Does that sound about right? you're assuming =foo-1.* even works ... it doesnt so no one is using =foo-1.* now I made no such assumption, although I can see how one might read that into what I wrote. I was just trying to clarify in my own mind what you were trying to convey. The idea of expanding the =base* syntax to allow =base.* seems like a reasonable response. As you pointed out, no one is using it, so adding it won't break anything. The question I'm trying to ask is this: =foo-1.2.* should obviously match foo-1.2.3, but should it also match on foo-1.2? It seems more _useful_ that the 1.2 version would also match, despite not having the .3 subversion, but perhaps that is not perfectly intuitive from the syntax. Your thoughts? if we want to go long term and cut #*, then we can chat on gentoo-dev Is that from a development version, or have I missed something? I can't seem to find atoms with the hash prefix anywhere. replace the # with a number Ah, right. Of course. Thanks. -- mount /dev/wyrm /mnt/bed ; sleep 28800 pgp7nmbChZSZr.pgp Description: PGP signature
