On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:35:06PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:31:31 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Do you have a good reason to > a) limit -r to X.Y instead of a full version specifier (i.e. -r1.2.3a)?
While I've said -rx.y, -rx.y(.z)* would fly, avoiding a repeat of the base issue for overlays of overlays. That said, allowig [a-z] is daft imo; it's in version (non-rev) components now since it mirrors semi-common upstream practices. -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as simple as possible without castrating it's use. So.... lecture aside, [a-z] seems a bit a pointless; example above, could just do -r1.2.3.1 instead of -r1.2.3a > b) use different semantics for [subversion component float > comparison rules]? Better question; why spread it further? For version components (nonrev), float makes some sense to match some whacky upstreams, that said, -r* is a *ebuild* convention so their isn't any reason to continue it. Fairly sure most folk aren't aware of the float comparison rules anyways for version components ;) ~harring
pgp4m9bYJk5Y4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
