Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:45:32
Message-Id: 1340473390.5979.76.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots by Ciaran McCreesh
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?

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>