1 |
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2016 à 10:16 +0100, Ulrich Mueller a écrit : |
2 |
> > |
3 |
> > > |
4 |
> > > > |
5 |
> > > > > |
6 |
> > > > > > |
7 |
> > > > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > On 11/03/2016 05:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > == Policy changes? == |
13 |
> > > I think that the following new policies could make sense: |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > You likely mean "no higher than 9999", longer than would give large |
19 |
> > values |
20 |
> |
21 |
> The wording would be similar to "no longer than 4 digits". |
22 |
> |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > > |
25 |
> > > 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, |
26 |
> > > 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > Given revision in most cases is incremental (except for some -r100, |
30 |
> > -r200) cases, some structure here is likely good. I take it we're |
31 |
> > talking about devmanual changes in this case for policy? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Yes, it would be purely devmanual/tree policy. PMS will still mandate |
34 |
> that the package manager can handle arbitrary long versions. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Looks like using multiples of 100 is best practice if there is |
37 |
> the same PV in different slots. Not sure if we should codify that |
38 |
> somewhere. (If nobody contradicts, this message could be used as |
39 |
> future policy reference, though. :) |
40 |
|
41 |
There was much contradiction when this was "discovered" being used in |
42 |
webkit-gtk ebuilds back when slot 3 was added. However, I don't |
43 |
remember anyone reaching a solution that would be practical keeping |
44 |
only one cat/pn. |
45 |
|
46 |
-- |
47 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |