List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
> > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
> Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have
> been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand.
> Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in
> any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex
> proposal, or the silent rules proposal.
> > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in
> > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest
> > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should
> > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer
> > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions.
> 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?
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)