Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:40:28 +0200
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
>>> * ordering for _pre is wrong.
>> hm?
> 
> foo-0.26-live would become foo-0.26_pre1, which would be < 0.26. This
> is clearly wrong.

No, it is correct and what you want. Upstream is aiming for 0.26, once 
0.26 gets in portage you want to update to the release.

>>> * How are you planning to handle reinstalls? Should installing world
>>> always reinstall live things? Never? Or what?
>> depends on the other ebuilds
> 
> More specifically?

the live ebuild act as template for a autogenerated _pre, if there is 
something higher than _pre that one will be picked.

>>> * How are live ebuilds selected by the package manager?
>> live ebuilds gets considered as preN+1 for any purpose.
> 
> So you're saying they *always* get reinstalled as a new version if
> they're part of the dep tree?

only on -e since you do not have the live template evaluated again.

>>> * What's the filename for "live ebuild for SVN trunk/"? What about
>> foo-${version inside trunk}.live?
> 
> And when trunk is unversioned?

Upstream has an issue, still you know which is the version they aim.

>>> "live ebuild for SVN branches/0.26/"?
>> foo-0.26.live?
> 
> Orders incorrectly when 0.26.1 has been released.

no.

>> What is inside the template is just concern of the ebuild writer. I 
>> suggest to use the same version as marked in the configure or other 
>> version value the release will get once upstream decides to release.
> 
> There's no way of getting the desired effect with current dep specs.

Your comment seems unrelated to the text.

Anyway pkgcore and portage devs, I'd like your opinion on this point.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list