[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Add information on version comparison to manpages

[Nagy Gabor]

> 2008/6/20 Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com>:
> > 2008/6/20 Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>:
> >>
> >> 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)
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I was also thinking about that.
> > But what is strange is that in the rpm epoch link I just gave, they
> > give an example that matches our situation.
> 
> Not to say that I think the new vercmp is "wrong" and the old one is
> "correct", but
> 
> 2008/6/15 Miklos Vajna <vmiklos at frugalware.org>:
> > 1.0rc < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0pre < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0alpha < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0beta < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0a < 1.0 -> bad
> > 1.0b < 1.0 -> bad
> > 1.0b (if 'a' stands for alpha) < 1.0 -> good
> > 1.0b (if 'b' stands for beta) < 1.0 -> good
> >
> > so it was 6 good vs 2 bad while now it's 6 bad vs 2 good, if i
> > haven't miscounted something.
> 
> the old vercmp also maintains backwards compatibility,
> i.e. packages that used to have options=('force') (e.g. samba) will
> still have it,
> and packages that used to not have options=('force') when using
> *{rc,beta,pre} won't need it.
> (I didn't counted anything though :-P).
> 
> I mostly dislike the change just because it will require
> removing/adding options=('force') to packages
> without a real need (IMO).
> /me shrugs
> 

Yes. And in Xavier's link there is a "Problems with Dependencies"
paragraph. So it is required to minimize force/epoch in order to
calculate 'foo>=1.3-1' dependencies correctly. Question: any foo
package with force will satisfy this. Right?

Bye