| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Thode |
| 2 |
<prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 09/18/2015 01:24 PM, konsolebox wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode |
| 5 |
>> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Are you stating this is for package epochs? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package |
| 9 |
>> versions, yes. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The current specification I also mentioned is this: |
| 12 |
>> https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/5/pms.html#x1-280003.2 |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Nah, I'm talking about epochs. When a package wishes to reversion |
| 16 |
> itself, changing how it does versioning. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> For instance, nova is going to go from 2015.1.1 to 12.0.0, so 2015.n.x |
| 19 |
> is epoch 1, and 12.y.z is epoch 2. Think of it like super versioning. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
No.. I believe it's up to the ebuild maintainer what versioning |
| 22 |
strategy he'd use. Personally I don't mind having 12.x.y and 2015.x.y |
| 23 |
to co-exist. You just have to mask 2015.x.y with keywords if |
| 24 |
necessary. Some packages actually mix version numbers. It just |
| 25 |
depends. |
Archives