[Distutils] RFC PEP 386 : Version comparisons

[Floris Bruynooghe]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 01:09:34PM -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:28 AM 7/6/2009 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 02:40:37PM -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
>> > At 02:12 PM 7/4/2009 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> >> - -1.  I would rather exclude some use cases (post releases), than drop
>> >> standardization altogether.
>> >
>> > And some people are the exact opposite, which means there's no
>> > consensus...  and thus no way to proceed.
>>
>> I was under the impression that .devX and .postX where accepted, but
>> it got messy when .postX.devX got used.  But AFAIC (I'm not re-reading
>> the entire thread now) it was stated that .postX.devX was not actually
>> required (and if it was required just allowig exactly one each and it
>> that order was sufficient).
>
> Not quite; it's .devX.postX that's not required.
>
> It should be possible to implement all the development schemes I know of 
> using something like:
>
>     X(.X?)*([abc]X?)?(.postX?)?(.devX?)?
>
> where "X" expands to (\d+).
>
> Which is why I don't really understand what all the fuss is about.  If 
> you're going to support a/b/c, you're not going to be able to do straight 
> string comparison anyway, so there's little loss in allowing ONE post tag 
> and ONE dev tag to be used as well.

Eh well, almost got that right.  Point is this isn't an overly
complicated scheme and it allows most, if not all, sensible existing
schemes to be converted to it.  And as Tres argues very good in
another mail on this thread[0] this is actually important to make the
requires-dist of PEP 345 useful.

So I'm in favour not dropping PEP 386.

Regards
Floris

[0] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2009-July/012410.html

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org