*To*: debian-devel@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-*From*: Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.iki.fi>*Date*: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:58:34 +0300*Message-id*: <[🔎] 1155286714.4347.52.camel@dorfl.liw.iki.fi>*In-reply-to*: <[🔎] 20060811084733.GA5810@lapse.madduck.net>*References*: <20060808235835.GA19278@lapse.madduck.net> <[🔎] 87mzae1a7d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <[🔎] 44DBBD7B.8020909@teco.edu> <[🔎] 87slk3j1fs.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <[🔎] 20060811083112.GB16607@angband.pl> <[🔎] 20060811084733.GA5810@lapse.madduck.net>

pe, 2006-08-11 kello 09:47 +0100, martin f krafft kirjoitti: > also sprach Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> [2006.08.11.0931 +0100]: > > Uhm, where does the "0" come from? This is grossly unintuitive, and I would > > consider this a bug. Both strings parse as follows: > > > > "1." => "", 1, "." > > "1.0" => "", 1, ".", 0 > > actually, you forgot the trailing "" > > > And another bug: "2a.0" is _lesser_ than "2.0"! This works as > > documented, but is totally against lexicography, expectations and > > common sense. > > I'll shoot anyone who uses such a version number. :) Indeed. I think the best lesson from this thread is that as long as version numbers are simple and sensible (number, period, number, period, ..., and no numbers have leading zeroes), everything usually works without surprises. If version numbers become more complicated than that, there will be surprises, and sometimes nasty ones. At least we rarely see, these days, upstream version numbers that are successive negative powers of 10 (0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001... where 0.1 < 0.01), or successive negative integers (-1, -2, -3, -4...). Or successive phone numbers in a certain year's edition of the Helsinki telephone book (don't ask, I was young and silly). -- Fundamental truth #4: Typing URLs always introduces errors. Always copy +paste.

**References**:**Re: dak now supports ~ in version numbers***From:*Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

**dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-** - Next by Date:
**Re: Status of inetd for etch** - Previous by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-** - Next by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-** - Index(es):