[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rpmvercmp() bug

In regard to: Re: rpmvercmp() bug, Ian Peters said (at 6:28pm on Oct 18, 2001):

>So for my part I'd rather see a simple, hard-and-fast rule that says
>"this is what versions must look like, this is how they will be treated"
>that maybe makes packagers lives a little harder, but tough, and then a
>simple straightforward rpmvercmp().

I would far prefer simple and elegant with no hacks and no need for "special
cases" too, but it doesn't seem that's the way the world works, at least
in this case.

If special caseing some additional logic into the version comparison
routine improves its ability to guess what a package creator meant, then
I think it's worth considering.

Make no mistake, though -- I'm not passionate about this one way or
another.  I see your side completely and agree, but getting the rest of
the world to see our wisdom on "how to do package versioning, the right
way" doesn't seem to be a realistic task.  Making software that is
"generous in what it accepts" often involves little warts like this.

Tim Mooney                              mooney@dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu
Information Technology Services         (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building              (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []