Re: Release rules Was: Re: [Monotone-devel] conflicts store vs show_conflicts

[Timothy Brownawell]

On 11/22/2010 10:48 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:46:49PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:28:23PM -0600, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> > > On 11/22/2010 09:43 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > > > This if we add ~dev7 to version number 1.1, we'll get version 1.1~dev7,
> > > > which will sort before version 1.1
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like the numbering system we're looking for.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this isn't the *entire* comparison alrorithm. There's also
> > > > an epoch and a Debian-specific attachment to the verison number.  Check
> > > > the link above for further details.
> > >
> > > Yep, that would be ideal except it looks like rpm-based distros don't
> > > support it.
> >
> > Maybe we should log a bug against rpm itself.
>
> Maybe we should first find out what the actual specifications are for
> version numbers in rpm.

http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=blob_plain;f=lib/rpmvercmp.c;hb=HEAD

Numeric segments are newer then alpha segments, anything other than an 
alnum is a separator and is otherwise ignored. So "abc123.de-~f8g" has 
segments "abc" (alpha), "123" (numeric), "de" (alpha), "f" (alpha), "8" 
(numeric), "g" (alpha). I also found a perl module earlier today that 
claimed to have copied an earlier rpm version; that had alpha vs. 
numeric segments in the same position as arbitrary/undefined but was 
otherwise the same.

--
Timothy

Free public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net