Skip to content

PURL add well-known qualifier vers#433

Merged
pombredanne merged 4 commits intopackage-url:mainfrom
jkowalleck:purl/qualifier-vers
Jul 1, 2025
Merged

PURL add well-known qualifier vers#433
pombredanne merged 4 commits intopackage-url:mainfrom
jkowalleck:purl/qualifier-vers

Conversation

@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member

@jkowalleck jkowalleck commented Mar 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

As sketched by @pombredanne and discusses in a PURL community meeting,
here is the qualifier vers.

example usage: pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?vers=vers%3Acpan%2F%3E%3D2.2.0%7C%21%3D%202.2.1%7C%3C2.3.0

@jkowalleck
qualifier: vers
8f8e244 
Signed-off-by: Jan Kowalleck <jan.kowalleck@gmail.com>
@jkowalleck jkowalleck added PURL component: qualifiers Ecma Ecma standard Part of the Ecma standard for PURL labels Mar 27, 2025
@jkowalleck jkowalleck changed the title qualifier: vers PURL add well-known qualifier vers Mar 27, 2025
@jkowalleck jkowalleck requested review from a team, johnmhoran and pombredanne March 27, 2025 15:21
@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member Author

jkowalleck commented Mar 27, 2025

did not add an example to the spec, as the qualifier encoding is currently reworked -- #398

This was referenced Mar 27, 2025
Open
Closed
@jkowalleck
docs: reword docs for qualifier vers
a7b6409 
Signed-off-by: Jan Kowalleck <jan.kowalleck@gmail.com>
@jkowalleck
docs: reword docs for qualifier vers
1d149e5 
Signed-off-by: Jan Kowalleck <jan.kowalleck@gmail.com>
mprpic
mprpic previously approved these changes Mar 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@mprpic mprpic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@jaimergp jaimergp mentioned this pull request Mar 30, 2025
Open
@jaimergp
Copy link

jaimergp commented Mar 30, 2025

Is the vers: scheme required or should it be considered redundant? Like, would this be ok?

# with scheme
pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?vers=vers:cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0
# without scheme
pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?vers=cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0

@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member Author

jkowalleck commented Mar 30, 2025 •
edited by mjherzog
Loading

Is the vers: scheme required or should it be considered redundant? Like, would this be ok?

# with scheme
pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?vers=vers:cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0
# without scheme
pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?vers=cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0

thought the same, but went with the full spec for the following reasons:

  • the vers: is part of the current version rage spec. keep it in, make adoption easy as no post-processing needed.
  • the vers: schema is a good indicator what is going on. maybe version range spec changes in the future, and vers2: would come - so that the schema is a critical indicator/flag.
    Or maybe some contestant version-spec will be released eventually; what would we do then, add another qualifier just for this one, since we don't have clear spec indicators/flags?

this being said, the qualifier name vers is debatable. Alternatives i saw:

  • version_range --> pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?version_range=vers:cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0
  • version_spec --> pkg:cpan/AUTHOR/Module-Name?version_spec=vers:cpan/>=2.2.0|!= 2.2.1|<2.3.0
  • tbd

@jkowalleck jkowalleck requested a review from a team March 30, 2025 19:01
@jkowalleck
Copy link
Member Author

jkowalleck commented Apr 2, 2025

updated/added examples, since #439 was merged

@johnmhoran johnmhoran added this to the 1.0-draft milestone Apr 4, 2025
@jkowalleck jkowalleck mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2025
Closed
4 tasks
pombredanne
pombredanne approved these changes Jul 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@pombredanne pombredanne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's merge this and refine later, as there the update to the spec mean the example is not correct

johnmhoran
johnmhoran approved these changes Jul 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@johnmhoran johnmhoran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The example is incorrect -- the "Character encoding" section provides that the colon ':', "whether used as a Separator Character or otherwise", "MUST NOT be percent-encoded". We can refine this in a separate issue/PR.

@pombredanne pombredanne merged commit cffe6fa into package-url:main Jul 1, 2025
pombredanne added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2025
@pombredanne
Align example with spec for colon
09c2ebf 
The colon is never percent encoded anywhere.

Reference: #433
Signed-off-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
@pombredanne pombredanne mentioned this pull request Jul 1, 2025
Merged
@giterlizzi giterlizzi mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2025
Closed
@johnmhoran johnmhoran mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2025
Closed
This was referenced Oct 5, 2025
Closed
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@pombredanne pombredanne pombredanne approved these changes

@johnmhoran johnmhoran johnmhoran approved these changes

+2 more reviewers

@jaimergp jaimergp jaimergp approved these changes

@mprpic mprpic mprpic left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

1 high priority Ecma standard Part of the Ecma standard for PURL PURL component: qualifiers

Projects

None yet

Milestone

PURL Ecma-Standard v1.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

How to use vers: with pkg:?

6 participants

@jkowalleck @jaimergp @mprpic @pombredanne @johnmhoran @mjherzog