Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> 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

fwiw, I've got mips-sources modified to follow the upstream kernel.org notation 
of 2.6.x.y (even though our primary upstream, linux-mips.org, doesn't utilize 
this notation at all).

There's logic in the ebuild that can switch between using -rc, point releases 
(the .y ones) and standard versions, and it modifies the logic to fetch the 
appropriate patch(es) from upstream to save on what we need to upload to the 
gentoo mirrors.

Been following this since ~2.6.12, and we haven't had any issues with the 
versioning in portage or reported from users.  mips-headers even uses it now.


--Kumba

-- 
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere."  --Elrond
-- 
gentoo-kernel@g.o mailing list