| 1 |
On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 |
| 3 |
> metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime |
| 4 |
> requirements. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package |
| 7 |
manager side. If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide |
| 8 |
precise details along with reasoning. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within |
| 11 |
> eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any |
| 12 |
> revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a |
| 13 |
> revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared |
| 16 |
to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now. We can change the spec to |
| 17 |
match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start |
| 18 |
doing it again. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, |
| 21 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 |
| 22 |
> initial dev thread, |
| 23 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b. |
| 24 |
>xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: |
| 25 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e. |
| 26 |
>xml |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible |
| 29 |
> breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities |
| 30 |
> in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in |
| 31 |
> ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. |
| 32 |
> What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) |
| 33 |
> variance? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely? |
| 36 |
I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, |
| 37 |
but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts |
| 38 |
of the version syntax. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving |
| 41 |
details, as Ciaran already asked. |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives