Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 142330 - [Portage] Handling of version numbering is worng
Summary: [Portage] Handling of version numbering is worng
Status: VERIFIED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: AMD64 Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-07-31 13:47 UTC by Patrik Larsson
Modified: 2006-07-31 14:09 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
Portage handles version numbering wrong, proof (foto.jpg,35.54 KB, image/jpeg)
2006-07-31 13:50 UTC, Patrik Larsson
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Patrik Larsson 2006-07-31 13:47:39 UTC
Hi!

Just cleaned out my package.keywords and find that emerge thinks sys-apps/man-1.6-r1 is a downgrade from sys-apps/man-1.6b-r2. According to http://gentoo-portage.com/sys-apps/man this is not the case.

I *think* portage is confused by the "b" in the version numbering.

So either is emerge wrong in handling these version numbers or the version of man is written "the wrong way".

I'll attach a image showing the problem as soon as i can...

Regards,

Patrik
Comment 1 Patrik Larsson 2006-07-31 13:50:26 UTC
Created attachment 93143 [details]
Portage handles version numbering wrong, proof

This image shows the problem i have regarding portage handling version numbers that is written "the wrong way"
Comment 2 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-31 13:53:43 UTC
Sure it is a downgrade, that's correct behaviour.
Comment 3 Patrik Larsson 2006-07-31 13:59:39 UTC
Hi!

Well, normally, should not the b stand for beta. If the b is gone, we are past beta. beta or not > release candidate numbering.

Am i right or is it something i'm missing here?

Regards,

Patrik
Comment 4 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-31 14:03:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, normally, should not the b stand for beta. If the b is gone, we are past
> beta. beta or not > release candidate numbering.

Nope...

1.6_b would stand for beta, 1.6b is higher that 1.6a and so on (in alphabetical order ;)