Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:01:33
Message-Id: 20120623185642.287880b7@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots by "Michał Górny"
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat > > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer > > > > versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just > > > > as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. > > > > > > And what problems is that causing for you? > > > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > > newer version" than -r200 > > It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision.
That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
> > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by > something sane rather than worked around.
I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and that's what this proposal provides. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>