Subject: Re: pkg_create -O bug fixes
To: David Young <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 06/29/2003 16:37:54
[ On Sunday, June 29, 2003 at 14:14:35 (-0500), David Young wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: pkg_create -O bug fixes
> BTW, I don't think it's true that a package name ending in -1.6U.0
> or -1.6U is invalid. Package names which pass through that code path
> commonly contain version numbers, e.g., *-1.4.2.tgz. The @name is written
> with the version number. Do tell if I misunderstand, since it's probably
> important to System Packages.
I had thought that only magic like "rc" and "pl" were allowed in package
version strings, but indeed I see pkg_info(1) now says in part:
[[....]] The collating sequence of the various package ver-
sion numbers is unusual, but strives to be consistent. The magic
string ``rc'' equates to release candidate and sorts before a re-
lease. For example, name-1.3rc3 will sort before name-1.3 and
after name-1.2.9 In addition, alphabetic characters sort in the
same place as their numeric counterparts, so that name-1.2e has
the same sorting value as name-1.2.5 The magic string ``pl''
equates to a patch level and has the same value as a dot in the
dewey-decimal ordering schemes.
So in theory "*-1.6U" should be equivalent, collating-wise, to "*-1.6.48"
So, I think you're right, there's a bug somewhere in how pkg_create
deals with package names that end with a non-numeric "extension".
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>