[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls -v is still inconsistent
From: |
Kamil Dudka |
Subject: |
Re: ls -v is still inconsistent |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:15:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071012.724442) |
On Saturday 21 March 2009 00:03:30 Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Friday 20 of March 2009 22:25:30 Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The '~' is often used in package version numbers. It sorts before the
> > version without it. For example the rule[1] for generating a stable
> > backport from the latest unstable version in Debian is: ``Append
> > "~bpo${debian_release}+${build_int}" to the version number,
> > e.g. "1.2.3-4" now becomes "1.2.3-4~bpo50+1", or for native packages,
> > "1.2.3" becomes "1.2.3~bpo50+1".'' (In this way the newer package,
> > when available, will upgrade and replace the backport.)
>
> Thanks for insight!
>
> > Is that a version separator or part of the version number? I am not
> > going to language lawyer it but will simply point out a common use of
> > it related to this.
> >
> > example_1.2.3-4~bpo40+1_all.deb
> > example_1.2.3-4~bpo50+1_all.deb
> > example_1.2.3-4~bpo50+2_all.deb
> > example_1.2.3-4_all.deb
>
> In this example the regex matches only ".deb" as the file suffix. The
> current filevercmp implementation works here as well as the patched one.
>
> > Bob
> >
> > [1] http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute
>
> I'll look at it deeper next week and check if the new regex works in all
> cases.
The Debian's backport suffix "~bpo${debian_release}+${build_int}" seems to
be safe in the context of this patch. Thanks to the '+' it can be never
matched as a file suffix.
Kamil
- ls -v is still inconsistent, Sven Joachim, 2009/03/19
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Kamil Dudka, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Bruno Haible, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Kamil Dudka, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Bob Proulx, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Kamil Dudka, 2009/03/20
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent,
Kamil Dudka <=
- Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Bob Proulx, 2009/03/23
Re: ls -v is still inconsistent, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/24