X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from localhost (unknown [187.40.251.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nc@alpinelinux.org) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B4D7DC0150; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:26:52 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: Kiyoshi Aman Cc: Timo Teras , alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] APK version formats Message-ID: <20120406162652.71fb901e@alpinelinux.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20120406160622.2db84f05@vostro> 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 On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:15:19 -0400 Kiyoshi Aman wrote: > 2012/4/6 Timo Teras : > > 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. > > Personally, I think that manually mangling version numbers is > inappropriate. In addition to the above proposal, I'd also like to > recommend that apk-tools itself mangle oddball version numbers so the > APKBUILD can always contain the true and correct version number. If you have a good algorithm that works on every single strange version scheme out there please let us know. I don't believe it is possible even in theory. In any case, we should not work on that now. We should fixing bugs and test things for v2.4 release. -nc --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---