| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:14:38 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> One other thing that needs discussion imo, is how such a scheme would |
| 4 |
> work for non integer based revnos- git for example, which is reliant |
| 5 |
> on a hash (just the hash, afaik). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Neither Luca's proposal nor -scm even attempts to address anything to |
| 8 |
do with upstream revisions. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Whilst doing so would be useful, it's considerably more work. There's |
| 11 |
another proposal floating around that lets -scm be extended to deal |
| 12 |
with upstream revisions too, but from an amount-of-work perspective |
| 13 |
it's highly unlikely that Portage will be able to deliver that stage of |
| 14 |
it any time soon -- the -scm proposal is designed to fit in nicely with |
| 15 |
the way ebuilds currently handle live packages, whilst not requiring |
| 16 |
much effort to implement. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Being realistic here, -scm is something that's deliverable and useful |
| 19 |
in a relatively short timeframe, but extending it to upstream-revision |
| 20 |
awareness isn't. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives