[pacman-dev] vercmp discussion

[Allan McRae]

Xavier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>   
>> You do realize you just broke openssh version numbering
>>
>> Here is my vote for the best order:
>> 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0c
>>
>>     
>
> I think I just restored the old behavior, what we had before is :
> 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0c < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0
>
> And as far as I can see, it never caused problems to openssh.
> Both old and new behaviors worked fine with it, because we always had :
> 4.3p1 < 4.3p2 < 4.4p1
>
> According to the cvs history :
> http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/core/support/openssh/PKGBUILD?root=core&view=log
> and the source archives :
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenSSH/portable/
> the scheme was always X.Y[.Z]pN .
>
>   

Yeah, poor example...  In the v1.2ish era they went 1.2 -> 12.p2 -> 
1.2p3 but that was a while ago...

A better example is samba :)


> Now, maybe 1.0alpha < 1.0beta < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0a < 1.0b <
> 1.0c would be better, but we never had this behavior, and implementing
> would be (much?) more complex than what we have now.
>   


I was really trying to point out that you can't satisfy everyone...  But 
maybe that order is quite good although it would be quite complex.

Allan