Summary: | portage thinks that 20080714 > 9999 version ! | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | niogic <niogic> |
Component: | Conceptual/Abstract Ideas | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | minor | CC: | coldwind, ferdy, levertond, rb6 |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
niogic
2008-09-04 23:32:20 UTC
agreed. It should be easy to fix this: if a version number can be parsed as a date (there are very few formats, all of which are easy to detect with a regexp), then it should be seen as less than 9999. also, this shouldn't be a maintainer issue, as there are dozens of packages using date versioning... A snapshot package for example could easily be called in that yyyymmdd format rather than yyyy.mm.dd or whatever, but that's a portage problem imo. -9999 is a convention, if one thought about this problem, probably -9999 would be -99999999 now. A practical example is outside the official portage tree, in the kdesvn-portage overlay. media-plugins/kipi-plugins has a 4.1 slot called that way (it's still a snapshot) and a svn slot called -9999 (In reply to comment #1) > agreed. It should be easy to fix this: if a version number can be parsed as a > date (there are very few formats, all of which are easy to detect with a > regexp), then it should be seen as less than 9999. > Or easier: if [-9999] then [latest] This is not a bug, it's the expected and logic behavior. For the short term, just use something sensible like '-99999999' or '-9999999999999999'. For the long term, this could be addressed with GLEP 54 [1] [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0054.html (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > agreed. It should be easy to fix this: if a version number can be parsed as a > > date (there are very few formats, all of which are easy to detect with a > > regexp), then it should be seen as less than 9999. > > > > Or easier: if [-9999] then [latest] > So what you're saying is that 2 < 10 < 1000 < 9000 < 9900 < 9990 < 9998 < 10000 < ... < 9999? That makes sense... See, the solution is so much easier and it's called glep 54. There is no reason to add special technical meaning to arbitrary numbers, even if there is an unofficial convention to use that number for a certain purpose. |