| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:46 +0000, Stephen Bennett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming |
| 6 |
> > scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have |
| 7 |
> > would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _pre<datecode> or |
| 8 |
> > whatever fits, but extending our naming scheme is unneeded and |
| 9 |
> > pointless. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And of course there is the issue of how older Portage releases will |
| 12 |
> react to ebuild names that they don't understand. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time frame |
| 15 |
on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that would |
| 16 |
implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some feedback. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 20 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives