| 1 |
Recently dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 (explicit -r0 in ebuild name) was |
| 2 |
commited to mainline gentoo-x86; as far as I know, this is in conflict |
| 3 |
w/ long term practice of not explicitly specifying -r0 in the ebuild |
| 4 |
name due to the implicit -r0 addition in comparison/atom matching. |
| 5 |
At this point, said ebuild is the only one in the tree with an |
| 6 |
explicit -r0 also, so I'm advocating having the -r0 dropped. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on |
| 9 |
leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems |
| 10 |
folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to |
| 11 |
problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Expanding on that one a bit, either -r0 should be required, or it must |
| 14 |
be left off- reason is simple, if you had both 1.1.0 and 1.1.0-r0 in a |
| 15 |
repo, and due to dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 == dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0 |
| 16 |
via the implicit -r0 rule, there is no defined sorting order there. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Literally, if both are there which version on disk the manager |
| 19 |
used would be indeterminant at worst, pkg manager specific at best. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I've opened a pms bug (21543) to get this corrected in docs, but |
| 22 |
again, emailing to ensure there is consensus- so kindly chime in as |
| 23 |
to which it should be. Personally I'm for preserving the unofficial |
| 24 |
long term rule of dropping -r0 from the ebuild name itself, but |
| 25 |
y'alls show, so speak up. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives