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 18:56:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
> Michał Górny <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> 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.
Did you look at SONAME?
> > > 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.
Yes, let's introduce some random 'funky' word for a single ebuild. Or..
since it's just a single package, maybe you would just add an ignore
list to paludis.