1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 |
7 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 |
9 |
> > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> > > > > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat |
11 |
> > > > > "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer |
12 |
> > > > > versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just |
13 |
> > > > > as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. |
14 |
> > > > |
15 |
> > > > And what problems is that causing for you? |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a |
18 |
> > > newer version" than -r200 |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being |
23 |
> used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. |
24 |
|
25 |
Did you look at SONAME? |
26 |
|
27 |
> > > and that the jruby implementation is not "a |
28 |
> > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by |
31 |
> > something sane rather than worked around. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be |
34 |
> anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and |
35 |
> that's what this proposal provides. |
36 |
|
37 |
Yes, let's introduce some random 'funky' word for a single ebuild. Or.. |
38 |
since it's just a single package, maybe you would just add an ignore |
39 |
list to paludis. |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Best regards, |
43 |
Michał Górny |