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