Gentoo Archives: gentoo-kernel

From: Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o>
To: gentoo-kernel@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-kernel] [ANNOUNCE] genpatches-2.6.16-2 release
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:09:39
Message-Id: 20060328170923.GA21022@osgiliath.brixandersen.dk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-kernel] [ANNOUNCE] genpatches-2.6.16-2 release by Daniel Drake
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> John Mylchreest wrote: > >Since were bunlding these whole now, should we just start naming the > >ebuilds correctly instead? > > I don't think so. 2 -stable releases in the 2.6.15 cycle didn't have any > immediate corresponding gentoo-sources bump since the patches were > already included. The fact that we include patches alongside -stable > means that using their notation isn't entirely accurate in our situation.
Both naming schemes have their advantages, but I see more disadvantages with using the 2.6.x.y naming scheme in gentoo-sources than I see advantages (primarily the reason Daniel stated above). I suggest we keep the current naming scheme for gentoo-sources, as it seems most correct. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

Replies