1 |
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it |
5 |
> > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have |
8 |
> been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. |
9 |
> Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in |
10 |
> any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex |
11 |
> proposal, or the silent rules proposal. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in |
14 |
> > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest |
15 |
> > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should |
16 |
> > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer |
17 |
> > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 |
20 |
> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 |
21 |
> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a |
22 |
> newer GCC and so on. |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
And what problems is that causing for you? |