| 1 |
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400 |
| 2 |
Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper |
| 6 |
> > upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world |
| 7 |
> > is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the package however, Portage does |
| 8 |
> > not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed |
| 9 |
> > me it's invalid with PMS as well. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage |
| 12 |
> > and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the |
| 13 |
> > version information. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild |
| 18 |
> and |
| 19 |
> sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You |
| 22 |
don't know unless you actually check the tree. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Marius |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives