On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > 
> > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a
> > newer version" than -r200
> 
> It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision.

That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being used
for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.

> > and that the jruby implementation is not "a
> > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation.
> 
> And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by
> something sane rather than worked around.

I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be
anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and
that's what this proposal provides.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh