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
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.