On Wednesday 04 September 2002 01:16, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> Unfortunately one is not always installing a package. For example a
> (semi-)automatic update tool might just be checking if a particular version
> is newer.
>
If it's built more recently, it's newer;-)
Actually, it's probably tru
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:43:18 -0400 (EDT), James Olin Oden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right. I was thinking about that, also. I am not sure what one should
>do in that case. I almost want to say assume the package being installed
>is newest...almost.
Unfortunately one is not always installin
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT), James Olin Oden
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This could be extended further such that a rpm could provide a function
> >that comparies versions (kind of like passing a function to the sort
> >routines that understands how to discern the magnitu
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT), James Olin Oden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This could be extended further such that a rpm could provide a function
>that comparies versions (kind of like passing a function to the sort
>routines that understands how to discern the magnitude of the objec
> No, the RPM version compare algorithm is very simple, and well
> documented. It does the best it can given that is has to handle all the
> different versioning schemes used by different programs with a single
> function. It gets it "right" probably >90% of the time.
>
> The challenge is that
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:18:05 +0800, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Monday 02 September 2002 12:07, Chip Turner wrote:
>> That's strictly opinion. The people (including non-Red Hat employees)
>> that work deeply with RPM daily don't really agree with your opinion.
>>
>>
>> RPM treats versio
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, John wrote:
> I know, people have already said that. However, it yields
> results that are clearly wrong. Nobody would think version
> 0.001 was the same as version 0.1.
ehh??? If I am doing development, using machine assisted
numbering, and find versions with:
4.011 and
On Monday 02 September 2002 12:07, Chip Turner wrote:
> That's strictly opinion. The people (including non-Red Hat employees)
> that work deeply with RPM daily don't really agree with your opinion.
>
>
> RPM treats version components as integers, not floating point
> numbers. That's the core o
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 31 August 2002 23:10, Chip Turner wrote:
> > > Try reporting that as a bug and see what the response is.
> >
> > But it isn't a bug. It's just how the algorithm works.
>
> A badly-chosen algorithm is still a bug.
That's strictly opinion. The peo
On Sunday 01 September 2002 14:32, Peter Bowen wrote:
> So, no this isn't a bug, nor is it broken-by-design. If you can come up
> with an algorithm that does a better job and is as fast as the current
> one, please post it. The current one is a step above some of the other
> algorithms available
On Saturday 31 August 2002 23:10, Chip Turner wrote:
> > Try reporting that as a bug and see what the response is.
>
>
>
> But it isn't a bug. It's just how the algorithm works.
>
>
A badly-chosen algorithm is still a bug.
--
Cheers
John.
Please, no off-list mail. You will fall foul o
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 21:27, Al Potter wrote:
> > John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Friday 30 August 2002 00:41, Chip Turner wrote:
> > > > To rpm, 1.61 and 1.061 are the same. But 1.6.1 and 1.0.6.1 are
> > > > different.
> > >
> > > Try reporting that as a bug and see what the resp
> John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Friday 30 August 2002 00:41, Chip Turner wrote:
> > > To rpm, 1.61 and 1.061 are the same. But 1.6.1 and 1.0.6.1 are
> > > different.
> >
> > Try reporting that as a bug and see what the response is.
>
> But it isn't a bug. It's just how the algorit
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 30 August 2002 00:41, Chip Turner wrote:
> > To rpm, 1.61 and 1.061 are the same. But 1.6.1 and 1.0.6.1 are
> > different.
>
> Try reporting that as a bug and see what the response is.
But it isn't a bug. It's just how the algorithm works.
Chip
-
On Friday 30 August 2002 00:41, Chip Turner wrote:
> To rpm, 1.61 and 1.061 are the same. But 1.6.1 and 1.0.6.1 are
> different.
Try reporting that as a bug and see what the response is.
--
Cheers
John.
Please, no off-list mail. You will fall foul of my spam treatment.
Join the "Linux Sup
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:16:37 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> >> Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 not work?
> >
> >How to decide when to split it like that?
>
> I'd do that for all perl stuff - i.e. modify the perl dependency
> auto-generation to use that version number, make my CPAN module RPM
> ge
On 29 Aug 2002 12:41:00 -0400, Chip Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 not work?
>
>To rpm, 1.61 and 1.061 are the same. But 1.6.1 and 1.0.6.1 are
>different.
Exactly - to perl, 1.61 and 1.061 are different, so with this translation
I'm making them different for RPM
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:28:46 +0200, Michael Schwendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:28:56 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
>
>> Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 not work?
>
>How to decide when to split it like that?
I'd do that for all perl stuff - i.e. modify the perl dependency
a
Ganesh Sittampalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Aug 2002 10:37:39 -0400, Chip Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You can't really do this. Basically the only real solution is epochs;
> >there simply is no one-to-one mapping of floats to RPM's vercmp.
>
> Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 no
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:28:56 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 not work?
How to decide when to split it like that? Is 1.21 newer or older
than 1.3.1? And for some software, 1.1a and 1.1b are older than
1.1.
--
Ever had a Commodore 64? -- http://remix.kwed.org
On 29 Aug 2002 10:37:39 -0400, Chip Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can't really do this. Basically the only real solution is epochs;
>there simply is no one-to-one mapping of floats to RPM's vercmp.
Why does 1.061 -> 1.0.6.1 not work?
>I suspect you're trying to come up with a way to a
You can't really do this. Basically the only real solution is epochs;
there simply is no one-to-one mapping of floats to RPM's vercmp. I
suspect you're trying to come up with a way to automatically generate
RPMs from CPAN modules? If so, I'd suggest looking at the
RPM::Specfile module on CPAN.
Does anyone know of a nice fix for this problem? The issue is that perl
orders version numbers based on a floating point comparison, whereas RPM
compares version numbers on an essentially integer basis (precisely, it
splits the version number into the pieces separated by '.', then compares
each ch
23 matches
Mail list logo
