| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:35:52 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Ignoring possible semantic issues for the moment, I'd be against this |
| 6 |
>> simply because it would require the PM to be aware of the current |
| 7 |
>> revision of the repository and to transform it into a integer value |
| 8 |
>> (trivial for SVN, not so trivial for CVS for example). Which in turn |
| 9 |
>> either means that the PM has to internally support the SCMs or support |
| 10 |
>> some new phase functions to extract the revision. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'm confused. If I have a gcc-4.4.0.live ebuild which checks out rev. |
| 13 |
> 136737, after the merge do I have gcc-4.4.0_pre136737 |
| 14 |
> or gcc-4.4.0_pre1 (and gcc-4.4.0_pre2 next time I merge it, etc) |
| 15 |
> installed? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
it would be gcc-4.4.0_pre1 but you'll have the revision inside the |
| 18 |
ebuild as var so you can get it easily. (e.g. the description shows it) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> The former, as Marius said, requires knowledge of how to get a sane |
| 21 |
> revision id from every SCM we want to support to be built into |
| 22 |
> the package manager. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I wonder if instead of rev id, we could use a timestamp to fill in |
| 26 |
> _pre. It's not ideal but it narrows the checkout down somewhat. |
| 27 |
> Also, we could use pkg_info to report revision numbers (for those SCM's |
| 28 |
> that have such a thing). The combination of the two might be enough - |
| 29 |
> you'd have the revision you installed, when you installed it, and an |
| 30 |
> automatic incrementor for those ppl who like those kinds of things. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I like better single digits but it's more or less the same as structure |
| 33 |
and code. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> If a dev wants to force a reinstall because of ebuild or patch changes |
| 36 |
> or whatever, they should still be able to use -rX as usual. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>> A lot of projects work like this: |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> * trunk/ is current development, and is ahead of any release. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> * branches/0.26/ is forked from trunk/ when 0.26 is released, and is |
| 43 |
>> equal to or ahead of any 0.26 release. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> How does your proposal handle this? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I'm guessing the dev would need to change 0.26.live to 0.26.1.live when |
| 48 |
> 0.26 was released. I already need to do this with my live ebuilds. Of |
| 49 |
> course, with some projects you never know if the next version will be |
| 50 |
> 0.26.1, 0.27, or 0.3, or 1.0... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
That's an upstream issue, all we should care is about getting a version |
| 53 |
value that makes sense for us, better if it does for them. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> As for an ebuild tracking trunk, I guess we're back to -9999.live. ;P |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
or just keep in mind that even trunk changes enough that you need to |
| 58 |
update the ebuild thus makes sense use a next supposed version. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
lu |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Luca Barbato |
| 65 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 66 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 67 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives