| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems |
| 4 |
>> that nobody |
| 5 |
>> read it: |
| 6 |
>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated |
| 7 |
>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and |
| 8 |
>> only |
| 9 |
>> ] increment $PR singly. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should |
| 12 |
>> probably be |
| 13 |
>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code, |
| 16 |
> not upstream code. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream, |
| 19 |
> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Thanks, |
| 22 |
> Donnie |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
+1 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while |
| 27 |
back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we |
| 28 |
worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established |
| 29 |
that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> |
| 33 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ |
Archives