From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NO_RELAYS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from drobbins by cvs.gentoo.org with local (Exim 3.30 #1) id 15Jd7g-0005WQ-00 for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2001 09:38:56 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dan: about your version question Message-ID: <20010709093856.A14752@cvs.gentoo.org> References: <3B48B633.ED2D28CC@home.com> <01070910234101.09315@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01070910234101.09315@localhost>; from ermak@netvision.net.il on Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:23:41AM +0300 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Jul 9 09:39:02 2001 X-Original-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:38:56 -0600 X-Archives-Salt: 9a770207-9f8f-4672-abc0-3bbbae69b080 X-Archives-Hash: 4f08d7ecc89097f0b8e3ddfee6aadd8b On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:23:41AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. My most important question is still unanswered however: > the one about versioning. > To summarize my previous post: CVS-derived packages can't be compared, > version-wise, with 'release' versions. A CVS package installed _now_ is > always the latest version, since it comes straight from CVS. But, a CVS > package installed any number of days ago may or may not be new enough. So, we > can't know whether or not dependencies are being satisfied. (Unless we put a > timestamp on all release versions added to Portage.) You're right; that's one of the main problems I see in integrating CVS into Portage. There's just no way to get a good date for version comparision, at least if we rely completely on the CVS server. One option is for the user to provide a specific "lead version", like 2.1. Then the snapshot versions can be labelled 2.1_cvs20010709 and we can do some form of version comparison. In thinking about this whole CVS thing, I think it may be best if we simply add the ability to automate the creation a .tar.bz2 snapshot of the CVS archive, properly labelled. Then, it can be uploaded to ibiblio and installed the normal way. However, as long as we use some kind of "lead version" technique, I should be able to add proper version comparisons for cvs stuff, and thus solve the biggest problem. 2.1_cvs20010709 could be compared against 2.1, 2.1_pre, 2.1_rc3, 2.1.1, etc. Because it's from CVS, I can have Portage assume that any 2.1 CVS release is newer than a 2.1 normal release (or even a p release). > A better idea I just had: if Portage can be _really_ integrated with cvs > management, we can fetch the _release_ version from CVS also! So, some > packages would go into "cvs mode", and would fetch either the specified > release version, or the latest release version, or the current version - > depending on the user's global/specific preferences. And then we could query > the CVS server for dates of release versions! > > What do you think? Well, I'm not sure how to do that. If you can provide some examples of bash commands that'll do that, maybe we can integrate it into Portage. Also, we need to have a reason to use a release version from CVS if there's a release .tar.gz file as well. Is the theory that the CVS release version will have the latest updates/bug fixes applied? Best Regards, -- Daniel Robbins President/CEO http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Technologies, Inc.