From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28046 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2017 16:22:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 28034 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2017 16:22:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=opportunity X-HELO: smtp-out-so.shaw.ca Received: from smtp-out-so.shaw.ca (HELO smtp-out-so.shaw.ca) (64.59.136.139) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:22:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([24.64.240.204]) by shaw.ca with SMTP id 9ZJ4eD4fp8LPZ9ZJ5eWNb2; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:22:28 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=e552ceh/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:117 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-RLzp38ndEiiwhnzfjcA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Subject: Re: [[PATCH setup] 0/3] Prepare for colons in version numbers To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20171027184723.9324-1-kbrown@cornell.edu> <87wp3gs87a.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <4eb3bda2-c6a2-bc48-d042-d54229a28514@dronecode.org.uk> <20171031112109.GF7980@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Brian Inglis Message-ID: <0ffb8115-4639-2a55-e81c-93788e64344a@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171031112109.GF7980@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfII6eo/MhD8gp+8Annee6JsrHJVk0u2M+9FjepZcsf0d3eUzU/sLoGilMopF4ZqalhHJaSQg9qNmShBs2lag5rIf+wdRy4+Uara5dpHZGhden3hAeeMU RLsj+RA63kJE/iWHMey98nV4NQhkYt4UU6Qbvu8HxhAshowM3Wwk2I6ydqEMlxQzSOkf1WP65jZy4g== X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 On 2017-10-31 05:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 31 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote: >> Am 30.10.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Jon Turney: >>> "everyone" != "everyone, ignoring people who disagree with me" >> >> I think this is an unfair summary of my position. >> >>> If you think epochs are a bad idea, you need to give reasons, not just >>> pretend there is no debate. >> >> I was strictly talking about those folks who've had the opportunity in >> practise so far, which is all the major GNU/Linux distributions. The ones >> I'm aware of aren't using epochs and instead decided to use other means of >> achieving the same (or similar) goals. In fact they created rules to not >> use epochs even though the tools support them. Their line of reasoning >> always was (and still is), that once you start using epochs there is no way >> going back and you could just as well have used monotonic release numbers >> instead of versions. The other point is that it is close to impossible that >> everybody will agree on what the epoch ought to be. The last point is that >> once an epoch bump is introduced, you can't decide to sort things >> differently unless you're prepared to invalidate all existing released >> packages. > > Not sure what distros you're referring to. Of the 58467 packages > in Fedora 26, 7822 are using epochs. At ~13% that's a bit higher than Ubuntu/Debian Trusty with 5056/48423 ~10%. It does not appear that either of those bases use the epoch in the package archive names, only in the package manager. That may be the way to go - don't use the epoch field in the package archive name. If the epochs differ - the package versions are totally different in some way. If they are the same epoch, the packages are correctly ordered by a version sort, as supported in sort, ls, etc. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada