| 1 |
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:27:07 +0200 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 06/10/2012 10:19 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:54:21 -0400 |
| 5 |
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> For libraries, if possible, try splitting gtk2 and gtk3 support |
| 7 |
> >> into different slots (see net-libs/webkit-gtk for an example; the |
| 8 |
> >> gtk2-based versions have -r2xx revision numbers and go in slot 2, |
| 9 |
> >> while the gtk3-based versions have -r3xx revision numbers and go in |
| 10 |
> >> slot 3). |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > That is not what revisions are for. If you can't solve a problem |
| 13 |
> > properly using existing mechanisms, ask for new ones. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I disagree. This is a proper solution, cause we use SLOTs and on top |
| 16 |
> of that revision numbers to make a difference for the ebuild name. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Uh, no. -rX, where X goes up by 1 each time, is used to indicate a |
| 19 |
revised ebuild (for example, when adding patches) where the upstream |
| 20 |
version remains the same. What you're trying to do is completely |
| 21 |
different. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The fact that something happens to "work" is not enough to make it |
| 24 |
right. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives