From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JWT1g-0001W7-Q6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:01:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F741E0453; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from polito.it (atena.polito.it [130.192.3.45]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A9DE0453 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:01:30 +0000 (UTC) X-ExtScanner: Niversoft's FindAttachments (free) Received: from [130.192.86.150] ([130.192.86.150] verified) by atena.polito.it (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 12281126 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:01:30 +0100 Message-ID: <47CD1104.6040905@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:06:12 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080304) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The eight digit limit References: <20080303174216.71f75957@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20080303174216.71f75957@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e1814350-0983-4b5d-a264-214288244f84 X-Archives-Hash: 698e5591b3b2357ebd45f1f0bd0c74bb Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > PMS currently has the following: > >> The package manager must not impose fixed limits upon the number of >> version components. No integer part of a version specification may >> contain more than eight digits. Package managers should indicate or >> reject any version that is invalid according to these rules. > > Historically, Portage had weird bugs for excessively long version > parts, especially when leading zeroes were involved, although as far as > I'm aware it's clean with arbitrary lengths now. Paludis is clean (and > issues a QA notice for violations), but portage-utils fails the > whole version handling thing in an epic fashion. could you please fill a bug about portage-utils on our bugzilla? > Given this, do we still need that restriction in place? There're quite > a few violations in the tree. I think the issue could be addressed and the limitation relaxed. lu -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list