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

Re: binary NMUs and version numbers



On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 17:52 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> The ^ would be suffix epoch and smaller than any other symbol except ~
> (and implies a debian revision of -0 if missing). The # would be
> bigger than any other symbol (also implies a debian revision of -0 if
> missing).
> 
> The reason for # is that we have many packages with a
> Depends: foobar (= 1.2-3) or
> Depends: foobar (>= 1.2-3), foobar (<< 1.2-4)
> 
> The problem with (= 1.2-3) is that a recompile binary-only NMU won't
> fullfill this anymore and one might have to also upload other packages
> unrelated to the bug to get the depends working.
> 
I'd actually go out on a limb and suggest that if we introduce a "less
than everything but null" operator such as ^, and policy it for
Binary-Only NMUs, that:

 1) Everything after the operator, including the operator itself be
    stripped and placed as the version in the Source header.

    e.g. foo_1.2-1^1 would have Source: foo (1.2-1)

 2) Everything after the operator, including the operator itself be
    stripped during version comparisons.

    e.g. 1.2-1^1 == 1.2-1

> And with the introduction of ~ the (<< 1.2-4) matches 1.2-4~pre1,
> which usualy isn't the intention of the above.
> 
Less-than dependencies tend to be a bit silly anyway due to #170825 and
friends.  They look good on paper but don't actually tend to work in the
situations the user intended them.

I can't infer from your mail any logic for #, it sorts greater than any
character currently permitted which is fair enough ... was this a typo?

	Depends: foobar (>= 1.2-3), foobar (>= 1.2-3#)

Did you really mean:

	Depends: foobar (>= 1.2-3), foobar (<= 1.2-3#)


If so, you can just do:

	Depends: foobar (>= 1.2-3), foobar (<< 1.2-4~)

to solve the same problem.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: