Vendor LooseVersion from deprecated distutils

src/catkin_lint/checks/misc.py

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
 import re
 from ..linter import ERROR, WARNING, NOTICE
 from ..cmake import argparse as cmake_argparse
-from distutils.version import LooseVersion as Version
+from ..looseversion import Version
 
 
 def project(linter):

src/catkin_lint/looseversion.py

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+
+import re
+import sys
+
+# The rules according to Greg Stein:
+# 1) a version number has 1 or more numbers separated by a period or by
+#    sequences of letters. If only periods, then these are compared
+#    left-to-right to determine an ordering.
+# 2) sequences of letters are part of the tuple for comparison and are
+#    compared lexicographically
+# 3) recognize the numeric components may have leading zeroes
+#
+# The LooseVersion class below implements these rules: a version number
+# string is split up into a tuple of integer and string components, and
+# comparison is a simple tuple comparison.  This means that version
+# numbers behave in a predictable and obvious way, but a way that might
+# not necessarily be how people *want* version numbers to behave.  There
+# wouldn't be a problem if people could stick to purely numeric version
+# numbers: just split on period and compare the numbers as tuples.
+# However, people insist on putting letters into their version numbers;
+# the most common purpose seems to be:
+#   - indicating a "pre-release" version
+#     ('alpha', 'beta', 'a', 'b', 'pre', 'p')
+#   - indicating a post-release patch ('p', 'pl', 'patch')
+# but of course this can't cover all version number schemes, and there's
+# no way to know what a programmer means without asking him.
+#
+# The problem is what to do with letters (and other non-numeric
+# characters) in a version number.  The current implementation does the
+# obvious and predictable thing: keep them as strings and compare
+# lexically within a tuple comparison.  This has the desired effect if
+# an appended letter sequence implies something "post-release":
+# eg. "0.99" < "0.99pl14" < "1.0", and "5.001" < "5.001m" < "5.002".
+#
+# However, if letters in a version number imply a pre-release version,
+# the "obvious" thing isn't correct.  Eg. you would expect that
+# "1.5.1" < "1.5.2a2" < "1.5.2", but under the tuple/lexical comparison
+# implemented here, this just isn't so.
+#
+# Two possible solutions come to mind.  The first is to tie the
+# comparison algorithm to a particular set of semantic rules, as has
+# been done in the StrictVersion class above.  This works great as long
+# as everyone can go along with bondage and discipline.  Hopefully a
+# (large) subset of Python module programmers will agree that the
+# particular flavour of bondage and discipline provided by StrictVersion
+# provides enough benefit to be worth using, and will submit their
+# version numbering scheme to its domination.  The free-thinking
+# anarchists in the lot will never give in, though, and something needs
+# to be done to accommodate them.
+#
+# Perhaps a "moderately strict" version class could be implemented that
+# lets almost anything slide (syntactically), and makes some heuristic
+# assumptions about non-digits in version number strings.  This could
+# sink into special-case-hell, though; if I was as talented and
+# idiosyncratic as Larry Wall, I'd go ahead and implement a class that
+# somehow knows that "1.2.1" < "1.2.2a2" < "1.2.2" < "1.2.2pl3", and is
+# just as happy dealing with things like "2g6" and "1.13++".  I don't
+# think I'm smart enough to do it right though.
+#
+# In any case, I've coded the test suite for this module (see
+# ../test/test_version.py) specifically to fail on things like comparing
+# "1.2a2" and "1.2".  That's not because the *code* is doing anything
+# wrong, it's because the simple, obvious design doesn't match my
+# complicated, hairy expectations for real-world version numbers.  It
+# would be a snap to fix the test suite to say, "Yep, LooseVersion does
+# the Right Thing" (ie. the code matches the conception).  But I'd rather
+# have a conception that matches common notions about version numbers.
+
+
+class Version:
+    """Version numbering for anarchists and software realists.
+    Implements the standard interface for version number classes as
+    described above.  A version number consists of a series of numbers,
+    separated by either periods or strings of letters.  When comparing
+    version numbers, the numeric components will be compared
+    numerically, and the alphabetic components lexically.  The following
+    are all valid version numbers, in no particular order:
+
+        1.5.1
+        1.5.2b2
+        161
+        3.10a
+        8.02
+        3.4j
+        1996.07.12
+        3.2.pl0
+        3.1.1.6
+        2g6
+        11g
+        0.960923
+        2.2beta29
+        1.13++
+        5.5.kw
+        2.0b1pl0
+
+    In fact, there is no such thing as an invalid version number under
+    this scheme; the rules for comparison are simple and predictable,
+    but may not always give the results you want (for some definition
+    of "want").
+    """
+
+    component_re = re.compile(r"(\d+ | [a-z]+ | \.)", re.VERBOSE)
+
+    def __init__(self, vstring=None):
+        if vstring:
+            self.parse(vstring)
+
+    def __eq__(self, other):
+        c = self._cmp(other)
+        if c is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+        return c == 0
+
+    def __lt__(self, other):
+        c = self._cmp(other)
+        if c is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+        return c < 0
+
+    def __le__(self, other):
+        c = self._cmp(other)
+        if c is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+        return c <= 0
+
+    def __gt__(self, other):
+        c = self._cmp(other)
+        if c is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+        return c > 0
+
+    def __ge__(self, other):
+        c = self._cmp(other)
+        if c is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+        return c >= 0
+
+    def parse(self, vstring):
+        # I've given up on thinking I can reconstruct the version string
+        # from the parsed tuple -- so I just store the string here for
+        # use by __str__
+        self.vstring = vstring
+        components = [x for x in self.component_re.split(vstring) if x and x != "."]
+        for i, obj in enumerate(components):
+            try:
+                components[i] = int(obj)
+            except ValueError:
+                pass
+
+        self.version = components
+
+    def __str__(self):
+        return self.vstring
+
+    def __repr__(self):
+        return "LooseVersion ('%s')" % str(self)
+
+    def _cmp(self, other):
+        other = self._coerce(other)
+        if other is NotImplemented:
+            return NotImplemented
+
+        if self.version == other.version:
+            return 0
+        if self.version < other.version:
+            return -1
+        if self.version > other.version:
+            return 1
+        return NotImplemented
+
+    @classmethod
+    def _coerce(cls, other):
+        if isinstance(other, cls):
+            return other
+        elif isinstance(other, str):
+            return cls(other)
+        elif "distutils" in sys.modules:
+            # Using this check to avoid importing distutils and suppressing the warning
+            try:
+                from distutils.version import LooseVersion as deprecated
+            except ImportError:
+                return NotImplemented
+            if isinstance(other, deprecated):
+                return cls(str(other))
+        return NotImplemented