From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91D3D7F72A for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 18:07:11 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:w8tGeRDUd38u18E6vQfmUyQJP3N1i/DPJgcQr6AfoPdwSP78oMbcNUDSrc9gkEXOFd2CrakV0qyP6+uxBSRAuc/H6yFaNsQUFlcssoY/p0QYGsmLCEn2frbBThcRO4B8bmJj5GyxKkNPGczzNBX4q3y26iMOSF2kbVImbtr8FoOatcmrzef6o8SVOFQRwmPlKuIuZFXu9EOK55FQ2dMjYo8KiTLx6kNSfOpXwW46bXmypD3bovmKwZh47i5LsOgg/cMTGY/zfqA/UKAKRG9+azN90vb2rgHORhej4X4VU2Ne0kYZQluN0BavVZ70tm7+t/Fh8CicJ8z/C74uChq46KI+aBLuhD0GNHYT92bSwphwgaRXuhOijwB424nVJpmSM+M4daTYK4BJDVFdV9pcAnQSSri3aJECWrZQMA== Authentication-Results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=hendrik@topoi.pooq.com; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=hendrik@topoi.pooq.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@april.topoi.pooq.com Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of hendrik@topoi.pooq.com) identity=pra; client-ip=69.165.131.134; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="hendrik@topoi.pooq.com"; x-sender="hendrik@topoi.pooq.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of hendrik@topoi.pooq.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=69.165.131.134; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="hendrik@topoi.pooq.com"; x-sender="hendrik@topoi.pooq.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@april.topoi.pooq.com) identity=helo; client-ip=69.165.131.134; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="hendrik@topoi.pooq.com"; x-sender="postmaster@april.topoi.pooq.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B0DgDK861X/4aDpUVehBtKATEBp1yRUIF9JoV3AoF9FAEBAQEBAQEBXCeCMgQDgiYBBTIBOxsLGAkEIQ8FGBk9iAUDFw66bQOESgEBAQcBAQEBI4p3hQyCYIIvBYZbDJJVhh6IbQpngVKNCow1g3geNoQWIDIBhyoBAQE X-IPAS-Result: A0B0DgDK861X/4aDpUVehBtKATEBp1yRUIF9JoV3AoF9FAEBAQEBAQEBXCeCMgQDgiYBBTIBOxsLGAkEIQ8FGBk9iAUDFw66bQOESgEBAQcBAQEBI4p3hQyCYIIvBYZbDJJVhh6IbQpngVKNCow1g3geNoQWIDIBhyoBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,511,1464645600"; d="scan'208";a="187527764" Received: from topoi.pooq.com (HELO april.topoi.pooq.com) ([69.165.131.134]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2016 18:06:41 +0200 Received: by april.topoi.pooq.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5AAAAC208D; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:06:39 -0400 From: Hendrik Boom To: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20160812160639.GA13669@topoi.pooq.com> References: <3F86857B-79DC-4FCE-8727-691C23120C3F@inria.fr> <20160809142412.GA12056@frosties> <1038B4FD-B561-413E-885A-8EAE00AC31FD@inria.fr> <20160812145615.GA12840@topoi.pooq.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Debian's version-numbering convention On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:57:13PM +0000, David Allsopp wrote: > Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 05:10:15PM +0200, Damien Doligez wrote: > > > > > > > In Debian "~" is used to denote versions smaller than, e.g. > > > > 4.04.0~beta1, 4.04.0~rc4 while "+" is for versions larger than, e.g. > > > > 4.03.0+bugfix7. Would it be possible to adapt the same for ocaml > > > > versions? > > > > > > No. We have a well-defined syntax for version numbers and we can't > > > change it without breaking an unknown number of tools. > > > > > > -- Damien > > > > Yet on Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 02:25:17PM +0200, Grégoire Henry wrote: > > > > Two questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Does OPAM really implement the Debian spec for comparing version > > > > numbers$ > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > This accords with the ocaml spec: > > That's the OPAM spec, not the OCaml spec! I see. You are right. There appears to be a distinction I was not aware of. -- hendrik > > > http://opam.ocaml.org/doc/Manual.html#version-ordering > > > > This suggests that any package-handling packages that don't handle "~" > > in the Debian way need to be fixed, possibly even old versions. It's not > > a matter of compatibility; it's a matter of error. > > That's true if you're handling OPAM package versions, but the OCaml version number is defined differently in http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/libref/Sys.html#VALocaml_version. > > > David > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs