| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper |
| 9 |
>>> upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world |
| 10 |
>>> is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the package however, Portage does |
| 11 |
>>> not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed |
| 12 |
>>> me it's invalid with PMS as well. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage |
| 15 |
>>> and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the |
| 16 |
>>> version information. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>> Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following? |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild |
| 21 |
>> and |
| 22 |
>> sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You |
| 26 |
> don't know unless you actually check the tree. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Marius |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of |
| 32 |
an atom. |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives