X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC2CDC0EB4 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wern13 with SMTP id n13so1878623wer.13 for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:07:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AR2xY3ZzdEjnOo7TBkeTyT/MuI7d9TNPaYmUdBsBQ8E=; b=gKEWN+FQHGvhGApzOyt48KAXzVgSJXuPLbgoHgTENUauHof1kBXS83s2TDS4Bju4Zr +sb6TMI37MPKicQvSJu5i/dosAC+ejXxMx+EU8RybMXgzYwAuSvZyxIrE1T6d5zwqcRw D2WMktykz6ZjyWHGv7WvAIKcXeJ68cwkLeF/6VmlCfJXeHQdVbQW3aqwwPovpwP9JTPt yBvJiCkg0Jo5DlwLxzt9k4nOLX0fe2SR2n03gTve0mbePpycshr+3udMKjIL5fLaDc9R PomHw+OtqNotWmKjxfkP039nGD4KvMNOdJui9GH29key2pdMMY5iHVf92KM38E6+2uIQ 7Ulg== Received: by 10.180.80.70 with SMTP id p6mr19556775wix.21.1333717641016; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vostro (mail.fi.jw.org. [83.145.235.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k6sm6263490wie.9.2012.04.06.06.07.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Timo_Ter=C3=A4s?= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:06:22 +0300 From: Timo Teras To: Kiyoshi Aman Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] APK version formats Message-ID: <20120406160622.2db84f05@vostro> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 07:39:54 -0400 Kiyoshi Aman wrote: > Would it be possible for apk-tools' versioning code to be adapted to > support underscores? Such version numbers are unfortunately common, > e.g. for RCs and on Perl modules such as ExtUtils::MakeMaker. > Moreover, most other package managers do support these version > numbers. I look forward to working with you folks on this matter. For others, we discussed this shortly in irc earlier; and the proposal is to accept version numbers "1.2.3_01" which are currently considered invalid. I also thought 1.2.3_rc1 is invalid, but that in fact is currently valid. However, 1.2.3-rc1 is invalid. I believe this is legacy of using in the dawn of time emerge and portage to do building. And (at least at the time) the underscore was not considered valid in versions. The current rule is that version is something like: {digit}{.digit}...{letter}{_suf{#}}...{-r#} Suffixes go into two categories "pre" and "post" version suffixes. "pre" versions are "alpha", "beta", "pre", "rc" and a version with any of these suffixes get sorted as earlier or lower than version without the suffix. "post" versions are "cvs", "svn", "git", "hg", "p" and get sorted later than or greater than version without suffix. I generally have no objection of handling empty string as "post" suffix. Assuming that's ok with ncopa and others. I think we should not have anything using Gentoo heritage anymore, so this should be safe change. Though, currently we do not support -rc1; and I'd prefer to keep this that way. 1.2.3-rc1-r1 might be confusing. So the question is with 1.2.3_01 versions if it's more trouble to mangle them (to 1.2.3.01; 1.2.3_p01; or similar) without causing too much trouble. Or if we should just accept 1.2.3_01 as-is. At least it would not cause any problems to sort them properly. Thoughts? - Timo --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---