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