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

Re: binary NMUs and version numbers

On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 15:52 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:24:58PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > 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:
> >  2) Everything after the operator, including the operator itself be
> >     stripped during version comparisons.
> >     e.g. 1.2-1^1 == 1.2-1
> Wouldn't this make automatic upgrades to binary NMUs cumbersome?  You'd need
> a separate version comparison routine for deciding whether to upgrade the
> package, than for deciding whether package relationships are satisfied.
Yeah, you'd have to vary exactly how it compared depending on the
circumstances of the comparison.  It was an idea, I didn't say it was a
*good* idea :o)

Maybe we should look at why this is needed?  binary-all packages
depending on a binary-any package from the same source with
Depends: (= ${Source-Version})

Is there any way we can eliminate the need to do *that*?

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: