Re: Release rules Was: Re: [Monotone-devel] conflicts store vs show_conflicts

[Richard Levitte]

In message <address@hidden> on Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:13:08 -0600, Timothy 
Brownawell <address@hidden> said:

tbrownaw> On 11/22/2010 10:48 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
tbrownaw> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:46:49PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
tbrownaw> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:28:23PM -0600, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
tbrownaw> >>> On 11/22/2010 09:43 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
tbrownaw> >>>> This if we add ~dev7 to version number 1.1, we'll get version
tbrownaw> >>>> 1.1~dev7,
tbrownaw> >>>> which will sort before version 1.1
tbrownaw> >>>>
tbrownaw> >>>> This sounds like the numbering system we're looking for.
tbrownaw> >>>>
tbrownaw> >>>> Of course, this isn't the *entire* comparison alrorithm. There's 
also
tbrownaw> >>>> an epoch and a Debian-specific attachment to the verison number.
tbrownaw> >>>> Check
tbrownaw> >>>> the link above for further details.
tbrownaw> >>>
tbrownaw> >>> Yep, that would be ideal except it looks like rpm-based distros 
don't
tbrownaw> >>> support it.
tbrownaw> >>
tbrownaw> >> Maybe we should log a bug against rpm itself.
tbrownaw> >
tbrownaw> > Maybe we should first find out what the actual specifications are 
for
tbrownaw> > version numbers in rpm.
tbrownaw> 
tbrownaw> http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=blob_plain;f=lib/rpmvercmp.c;hb=HEAD
tbrownaw> 
tbrownaw> Numeric segments are newer then alpha segments, anything other than an
tbrownaw> alnum is a separator and is otherwise ignored. So "abc123.de-~f8g" has
tbrownaw> segments "abc" (alpha), "123" (numeric), "de" (alpha), "f" (alpha),
tbrownaw> "8" (numeric), "g" (alpha). I also found a perl module earlier today
tbrownaw> that claimed to have copied an earlier rpm version; that had alpha
tbrownaw> vs. numeric segments in the same position as arbitrary/undefined but
tbrownaw> was otherwise the same.

How does the algorithm compare when one of the version has a segment
empty and the other doesn't in corresponding positions?  To take a
current example, how does 0.99 (segments "0" and "99") compare with
0.99.1 (segments "0", "99" and "1") according to those algorithms?
How would 0.99 compare with 0.99dev (segments "0", "99" and "1")?

My personally interpretation would be that 0.99dev would be older than
0.99, which would be older than 0.99.1, so as "value" goes, the empty
segment would be newer than a alpha segment but be older than a
numeric segment...

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish