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

Re: rpmvercmp is kinda broken, always has been

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Chris Garrigues wrote:

> > From:  Jeff Johnson <jbj@redhat.com>
> > Date:  Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:43:30 -0500
> >
> > > This would mean (00503 cmp 006) instead of (503 <=> 6).  (Pardon the perl syntax.)
> > > 
> > > I haven't figure out what that would break yet, but I know there's something.
> > 
> > Yup, finding what breaks with any new scheme is a lotta work, and is the rate
> > limiting step.
> I think I found it:

Better find/complet maintainers list which perl modules are incorrectly
versioned and send them short instruction how to correctly manage
versionig (IIRC it is described in "standards" info page for GNU/FSF
projects or in some other document prepared for GNU projects).

Currently handled by rpm versioning rules are probably used by more than
98% OS projects are very simple. Much simpler will be teach/inform few
people about this rules than implement handle every stu^H^H^Hincorrect
(from point of view this rules) versionig style in program like rpm.

*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: kloczek@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl*

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