| 1 |
FYI: I broke my own rule yesterday, so I guess we DO need interrevisions |
| 2 |
afterall. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Fabian |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On 27-11-2017 14:43:00 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 8 |
> On 27-11-2017 14:31:29 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 9 |
> > Hi Fabian, |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > On 11/27/2017 11:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > Hi all, |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > I've just finished removing all few remaining interrevisions (-r0.XY) |
| 15 |
> > > ebuilds from the prefix tree. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > In the next Portage release, interrevision support will be removed. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Please don't! |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Ok! |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > > I believe we no longer need to modify ebuilds so often, and keeping this |
| 24 |
> > > feature is now a deviation from mainline which we better avoid. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Although I've not managed yet to submit as GLEP or so, having interrevisions |
| 27 |
> > is quite important to me - and for a meta distribution in general I believe. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> [snipping reasons as to why interrevisions are useful] |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Would it be acceptable to "ban" the interrevisions from the prefix-tree, |
| 32 |
> but keep support in Prefix Portage? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Thanks, |
| 35 |
> Fabian |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> -- |
| 38 |
> Fabian Groffen |
| 39 |
> Gentoo on a different level |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 45 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives