On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Angel Velásquez <angvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29/06/12 02:58, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >>> I have a question about pacman's behaviour regarding packges to >>> be updated. >>> >>> According to < $: man pacman > >>> >>> You can also use pacman -Su to upgrade all packages that are out >>> of date. See Sync Options below. When upgrading, pacman performs >>> version comparison to determine which packages need upgrading. >>> >>> Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < >>> 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < >>> 3.0.0 >>> >>> That's very clear and makes sense. Here's where I'm confused. I >>> build some of my perl pacakges with cpanpkgbuild -f >>> XXX::XXX::YYY. The package from the official repos is: >>> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.5000-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >>> >>> the package I built is: >>> perl-datetime-format-strptime-1.51-1-any.pkg.tar.xz >>> >>> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra >>> ???. But with the above referenced package I had to list it in >>> the [ IgnorePkg ] line to keep pacman from trying to upgrade the >>> package and still get this warning. >>> >>> "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 >>> to 1.5000-1" >>> >>> No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about >>> the reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's >>> because the repo package has 4 digits then the package version >>> after the decimal point and my package has two digits then the >>> package version after the decimal point. The developer changed >>> his numbering scheme after 1.5000 to 1.51. >>> >>> Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >>> >> >> >> 5000 > 51 >> >> >> > > Yes, some perl packages had that versioning schema, which is > confusing.. that said, it's not a pacman bug. > > - -- > Angel Velásquez > angvp @ irc.freenode.net > Linux Counter: #359909 > http://www.angvp.com > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP7UTaAAoJEEKh2xXsEzutrPcH/iRPp7SyqtS3XfSfnVq0qXGh > 1ubC97p0LT3S2umtB3EojJ5HOCOvkCMCtASflSJW7yeCcv3jiExhSh2R0riQ2d29 > 3K/56Vhf0hMeNz3OJMgoUVgMicI4ulbWRswERXQqmd27WCqN1odMDJo6x564uC/9 > sALz0wVPkqi5fdxtAStoUBIUaQl7OLsv9EdP9OZrttjvN6SmZfN5LQMWvK0qBMfz > Y+5a2zT8LmkmUPvMO2VUBC9X9LvtALGPmsUILXzohXdJpjIRE3QsFUmQz1Ie98Vb > Pio4Fk5GIcRmsv6hJZicYVXGHpkyZGUgYImIWDeWu1OAAdaaHqEs9+BU3yYslA8= > =m/KC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Angel: I didn't think it was a pacman bug, "Bugs? You must be kidding, there are no bugs in this software", I was making sure I hadn't screwed something up along the way when I built my package. I should have added "Or did I screw something up?". Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
