| 1 |
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 11:13:58AM -0700, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 28 May 2003 07:06, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Policy is to avoid naming conflicts by using different names whenever |
| 4 |
> > possible. |
| 5 |
> Um, I don't think we have any policy on this matter. I was bringing this issue |
| 6 |
> about a month ago and found that some devs believe we cannot have duplicate |
| 7 |
> names (or avoid them whereever possible) others think oterwise... |
| 8 |
> There was a thread initiated by not very happy user whose ebuild was renamed |
| 9 |
> with the explanation that portage cannot reliably deal with this situation, |
| 10 |
> however later on he found two identically named packages. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The thread was on -dev and I think general consesus was that it would be nice |
| 13 |
> to allow duplicate names, we only need to make portage stop and ask for |
| 14 |
> clarification if duplicates are found during emerge (emerge search is fine |
| 15 |
> already). I think there is even a bug about this.. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I remember doing a search for duplicates and finding there were multiple. |
| 18 |
> Therefore it is not just a simple issue of enforcinf different names on all |
| 19 |
> new packages.. Unfortunately that conversation did not finish up at that |
| 20 |
> time, however this might have made it into udder project.. Nonetheless IMHO |
| 21 |
> it would be nice to settle on certain policy so that we can at least avoid |
| 22 |
> increasing inconsistency.. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Policy is to avoid naming conflicts. :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There are indeed ebuilds that conflict. Those are bugs that there is |
| 28 |
currently no clean fix for. Committing _more_ conflicting ebuilds is |
| 29 |
definitely not okay. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 34 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives