On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:27:19PM +0000, Philip Walls wrote: > On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:34:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 +0000 Philip Walls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > | This argument here can also be applied to the -r#.# solution you > > | mentioned, so I think the decision between -r#.# and -local# is really > > | just a matter of aesthetics. I'm on the fence as to which is best. > > > > The -r#.#.#.# solution is cleaner IMO. With -local# you'd still need to > > handle -local#.# or -local#-reallylocal-# to allow users to override > > overlays that override the main repository. > > > > I have a feeling the above is a solution waiting for problem, but from > a flexibility standpoint I actually really like it :) > > Adding this kind of revision number will convolute the version > comparison a bit, and the dep calculation will have to be patched to > allow this (currently it only allows for real floating point numbers). > > I think we'll want to refactor the vercmp() so that there is a > separate function for comparing version numbers (eg. 1.5 vs. 1.100 vs. > 1.02) which the revision comparison can use as well.
Be aware that if you reuse the vercmp logic, you're getting the special case float comparison rules, meaning 1.02 is less then 1.1 in comparison... Wouldn't introduce that for rx.y personally unless you've got a good reason for it. ~harring
pgp8ParXGG4T7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
