X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8772DC00CD
	for <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id bi1so143964pad.13
        for <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:cc
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id;
        bh=mU7jFpxjdMwtADFsI2tE4b44TJAbK57R5hafnUCq1+8=;
        b=gkct5rZDmaH6h7gHMjyur777eh3QFpgpM0yETTfgaPfrRRXL8dZqjKegsAlpEs/sSg
         X9dXjkGq0VnncNL11Xgfgr4O0TJ8LAV5DeP5UyNGcDfZCcnC1VXoLT88Q8BfX8Q0LQcP
         nqtoRjk/pHaUBdjoxDL+mNzGApHHOul1PNX5IvbNdEFJKGci8bbemVhpDVgQgaDKhMT0
         kt7JiRwZDMQ+CWzaA2owcHto5IUsQ6+w0xtzbNdm1UC7H6HEhcL2SGjZIZVVfEQ5kkcn
         Lb7IBU3ATwowZA+5WjVaup5l8a94WQqR5B782J6UaNsOGaWXL0F8ykwphdSlDvBVIWRv
         poeQ==
Received: by 10.66.88.133 with SMTP id bg5mr91728019pab.80.1351599136422;
        Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from microknoppix.localnet ([117.227.65.9])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bv6sm324421pab.13.2012.10.30.05.12.12
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "V.Krishn" <vkrishn4@gmail.com>
Reply-To: vkrishn4@gmail.com
To: Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Questions about apk CMD -U
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:38:57 +0530
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.3.7-64; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <20121029181737.GB16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> <201210301325.04001.vkrishn4@gmail.com> <20121030135427.78ec5489@vostro>
In-Reply-To: <20121030135427.78ec5489@vostro>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel
Precedence: list
List-Id: Alpine Development <alpine-devel.lists.alpinelinux.org>
List-Unsubscribe: 
	<mailto:alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: 
	<mailto:alpine-devel+subscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201210301738.57593.vkrishn4@gmail.com>

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 05:24:27 PM you wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:25:03 +0530 "V.Krishn" <vkrishn4@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should fix the -rN field to allow decimal point for
> > > "customized" builds or similar, like '-r1.1'. Any opinions on this?
> > > Or any other ideas?
> > 
> > How does _pN suffix get applied?
> 
> It is part of the version string. Before -rN, but after the version.
> E.g. 1.2.3_p1-r0.
> 
> > I mean , can it be any _<text>N?
> 
> No.
> 
> Currently apk-tools handles: _cvs, _svn, _git, _hg, _p as "post"
> version suffixes. Meaning they are considered higher version numbers
> than if the version was without any suffix.
> 
> Additionally, suffixes: _alpha, _beta, _pre and _rc are considred "pre"
> version suffixes, and considered as lesser version numbers as the same
> version without any suffix.
> 
> > if not then '-r1.1' may not be very helpful, coz package name should
> > indentify the packager in someway.
> 
> The problem with version numbers is that we need a way to identify
> which is greater and which is lesser in unambiguous way.

Just a thought:

eg.
 foo-1.2.3-r2
 foo-1.2.3_my2-r2.1 <- latest

eg.
 foo-1.2.3-r2
 foo-1.2.3_my2-r3.1
 foo-1.2.3_my3-r3.1 <- latest

eg.
 foo-1.2.3-r4 <- latest
 foo-1.2.3_my2-r3.1
 foo-1.2.3_my3-r2.1

eg.
 foo-1.2.3_my2-r3.1
 foo-1.2.3_my3-r2.1 <- latest

whole thing should work on assumption that
presence of any suffix should only be considered new if its root foo-
<version>-<rev>N are same or greater.
In absence of root package both suffixN and rN are evaluated.

> 
> If the source of the package is important, then the repository pinning
> mechanism is more suitable.

Yes, I guess, the preferred method.


> 
> -Timo

-- 
Regards.
V.Krishn


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---