Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:09:37 -0500 -n "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee@gmail.com> írta:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org> --- doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt | 3 ++- doc/pacman.8.txt | 8 +++++++- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt index b90d67a..0b1ce64 100644 --- a/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt +++ b/doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt @@ -214,7 +214,8 @@ similar to `$_basekernver`. Force the package to be upgraded by a pacman system upgrade operation, even if the version number would normally not trigger such an upgrade. This is useful when the version numbering scheme - of a package changes (or is alphanumeric). + of a package changes (or is alphanumeric). See linkman:pacman[8] for + more infomation on version comparisons.
build() Function diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.txt b/doc/pacman.8.txt index 5594ac6..08764de 100644 --- a/doc/pacman.8.txt +++ b/doc/pacman.8.txt @@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ provide the same functionality as foo will be searched for. If any package is found, it will be installed. + You can also use `pacman -Su` to upgrade all packages that are out of date. See -<<SO,Sync Options>> below. +<<SO,Sync Options>> below. When upgrading, pacman performs version comparison +to determine which packages need upgrading. This behavior operates as follows: + + Alphanumeric: + 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc
Sorry guys, I don't like this at all. I think the old behavior was better. And I don't see the reason of this change. We have many packages with alphanumeric version atm: a2ps-4.13c-1, aalib-1.4rc5-1, ... and I'm pretty sure that the expected behavior is that aalib-1.4 should upgrade aalib-1.4rc5-1, like earlier.
But what is the expected behavior for a2ps with the 'c' in there? Does 4.13 come before 4.13b? You are saying "I don't like this" without a whole lot of justification and you even gave me a converse example as far as I can tell. And I would tend to trust the upstream RPM guys quite a bit when it comes to version number ordering, as they deal with this a lot.
4.13a < 4.13b < 4.13c < 4.13 (old behavior, my interpretation: alpha, beta, gamma) You may trust rpm guys, but don't forget that rpm based distros usually use different versioning scheme, so '1.0b versus 1.0' is not a real life example there: alsa-lib-1.0.14-0.4.rc3.fc7.i386.rpm (Fedora) mplayer-1.0-0.20.pre7.0.rh9.rf.i386.rpm (Fedora)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=50977 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=178798
Could you show me a vercmptest entry? Bye