Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 51135 - Version comparison of 3.0, 3.0.0, 3.0.0.0 odd
Summary: Version comparison of 3.0, 3.0.0, 3.0.0.0 odd
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 37406
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core - Ebuild Support (show other bugs)
Hardware: All All
: High normal
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-05-15 08:04 UTC by Dan Armak (RETIRED)
Modified: 2005-07-17 13:06 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dan Armak (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-05-15 08:04:36 UTC
While packages shouldn't contain more than one of the above versions, the result of comparing such versions is to me very unintuitive. If it's not to be changed, I'd like an exact definition of its behaviour. Also, is it a part of the standard and can be relied on in future versions, or an undefined case?

What I see is this:
3 > 3.<any amount of zeros>
3.0.0 > 3.0
3.0.0.0 < 3.0.0
3.0.0.0.0 > 3.0.0.0
(continues in cycles of 3 or 4, AFAICS)

This is using portage 2.0.50-r6. jstubbs on irc says he can't reproduce it by accessing portage.vercmp() directly, and I don't know how to do it, but it does happen if I create ebuilds with those versions and test with emerge -p.

This behaviour completely broke the principle of least surprise for me. I'd have expected either of: 
- The fewer zeroes, the greater the version
- The more zeroes, the greater the version

The second of these seems the better choice, because in my experience when the versioning scheme of an ebuild needs changing (e.g. due to upstream change), the change adds a zero rather than removing one. But I say this based on only a couple of cases.
Comment 1 Nicholas Jones (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-05-19 15:54:01 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37406 ***

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37406 ***