| 1 |
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:12:37 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> What this email is about is the inconsistancy allowed on disk and the |
| 4 |
> fact explicitly leaving -r0 out of on disk name thus far seems to be |
| 5 |
> an unofficial gentoo-x86 standard. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Which means it's not something to be specified in PMS. Devmanual, |
| 8 |
possibly, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. (We don't |
| 9 |
specify that you should use tabs for indenting in ebuilds in PMS |
| 10 |
either.) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Uniquely indentifying an ebuild is an issue regardless of whether or |
| 13 |
> > not -r0 is allowed. See PMS section 2.4. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Stating that each cpv in a repo must be unique ignores that there are |
| 16 |
> multiple ways to specify certain cpv's due to implicit 0 (both suffix |
| 17 |
> and rev). Frankly it's pretty stupid to state "it must be unique" |
| 18 |
> while allowing multiple ways for people to screw up and violate that |
| 19 |
> constraint. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Intentionally allowing gotchas is dumb behaviour- removal of the |
| 22 |
> gotcha is the intention here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
PMS is going with the tree here. There have always been equivalent but |
| 25 |
not equal ways of specifying versions, and people use them. You don't |
| 26 |
want to start breaking people who use >=..._alpha0 when the version in |
| 27 |
the tree uses plain _alpha, for example. Package managers have to deal |
| 28 |
with this kind of thing, and it's not one of those areas where we can |
| 29 |
change reality with little or no impact. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives