Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:44:30
Message-Id: 20090311154416.2f79324c@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal by Luca Barbato
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:20:25 +0100
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> >> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre20090310 [from svn master > >> r12345] > > > > That claim right there is enough to show that you haven't thought > > about this at all. Your proposal is lots of handwaving magic, most > > of it unimplementable. I suggest you put together a reference > > implementation before promoting this idea any further. > > What's wrong is U that should be R beside that there isn't much > magic...
The U isn't the problem. The svn revision is the problem. You need to consider how the package manager would get the revision. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies