[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There are a couple of upstream packages that are release with p0
suffixes: ntp [1] and dvd95 [2].  Portage currently considers all
packages to have an implicit _p0 suffix, which means that
ntp-4.2.4_p0 < ntp-4.2.4-r1.  Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?  We have a patch attached to
bug 171259 [3] which will make ntp-4.2.4-r1 < ntp-4.2.4_p0.

Zac

[1] http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=net-misc;name=ntp
[2] http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=app-cdr;name=dvd95
[3] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171259
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGPSkl/ejvha5XGaMRApR8AKCvFXSyDA6BuWOEshUM/zCAmfjn8QCeJ7d6
amNpRM7a8Qr93gbkkdGif9Q=
=8+lJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:02:30 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the tree

Possibly, though I don't see a real reason for it.

> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?

No.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stephen Bennett wrote:
>> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
>> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
> 
> No.

Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
_p0".  The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.

Zac

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171259
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGPTH7/ejvha5XGaMRAsVbAKDLYv+RTfFe8dqF9Wvo1q0tGLce1ACfbPWU
DQNtsFDzCk16hwwl6vuq2CQ=
=O+7O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?

4 < 4_p < 4_p0 < 4_p1

how that gets accomplished is up to you Zac ;)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 May 2007 04:37:10 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> > tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
> 
> 4 < 4_p < 4_p0 < 4_p1
> 
> how that gets accomplished is up to you Zac ;)

It's supposed to be 4 < 4_p == 4_p0 < 4_p1 now.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 514 bytes --]

On Sunday 06 May 2007, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 May 2007, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > Should we ban the _p0 suffix from the
> > > tree or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
> > > implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
> >
> > 4 < 4_p < 4_p0 < 4_p1
> >
> > how that gets accomplished is up to you Zac ;)
>
> It's supposed to be 4 < 4_p == 4_p0 < 4_p1 now.

that also works for me in this case ... 4 < 4_p0 is what i was looking for
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

On Sunday 06 of May 2007 10:59:01 Marius Mauch wrote:
> It's supposed to be 4 < 4_p == 4_p0 < 4_p1 now.

And it's good as every other _suffix == _suffix0. No reason to make _p 
special.

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
> _p0".  The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
> greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
> equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.

OK, that change makes sense, and is in fact what PMS in its current
wording requires. One or the other should be changed to match, and I
think the PMS version at the moment makes more sense.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:10:56PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
> > _p0".  The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
> > greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
> > equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.
> 
> OK, that change makes sense, and is in fact what PMS in its current
> wording requires. One or the other should be changed to match, and I
> think the PMS version at the moment makes more sense.

As indicated above, that's actually a change to the long standing 
behaviour; personally, I'm inclined to just block _p0 from being used 
in ebuild version (meaning repoman).

Reasoning is simple enough- we disallow -r0 from being used for 
similar reasons (if it's implicit, adding it makes uniqueness annoying 
further it's unneeded).

My 2 cents at least.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]