X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB492DC0EB4 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so1832612wgb.25 for ; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:47:37 -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=3NoLxmLDb/uPrVJawBkcwjq2kGJ1GwHMAsBw8OBmPRI=; b=FGC6TgjA2GKxPXRymoikSUwdaxzUEAIDqsrXtzCKgb5cUzdn6SVigcZxiESpGXw5U8 Si+lOlL+lUK5BBrJsVH+4r83696MbzAe7s96KzsWq9pRcwBtKJju3fRBc0IWoskwSf+e 3bD285nX9BogTQPVNicuCitPoPJeCMvK975PiJ4oUUyKK3MLSkGbuSwEYXfEzNDOu1dO BEVDVVqkyx31e/2JQlBACBBYtjWnefu4IaThQmjq4wnApOxhFSgvSEuYTgWyMiqjRG69 SS9iqsO9rxD6OzfmA2LOw5zhnzDlZxY3Vy3cysmtmKyx3JMV90CeVGp4Mhcoi6wJG9qM cvXg== Received: by 10.216.134.83 with SMTP id r61mr4139049wei.17.1333720057324; Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vostro (mail.fi.jw.org. [83.145.235.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gg2sm10781292wib.7.2012.04.06.06.47.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Timo_Ter=C3=A4s?= Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:46:41 +0300 From: Timo Teras To: Kiyoshi Aman Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] APK version formats Message-ID: <20120406164641.6f7f7a74@vostro> 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. No. Currently apk-tools needs to be able to compare two version numbers, and make a rational choice which one is better. Just blindly mangling something makes this break. Alternative is that we change version to be just a 'display version'; and keep the apk-tools version separate thing. I believe it was earlier suggested that we could just use the package source repository and build timestamp to decide which package is the preferred one. In this case we could just dump whatever garbage in the version field, ignore it, and figure out the preferred package from better fields. --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---