| 1 |
On Sunday 20 March 2005 02:29, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 19 March 2005 18:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:28:51 +0200 Dan Armak <danarmak@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> > | It's true that the file list won't match. For which reason the target |
| 7 |
> > | package always started out at a greater version than what was |
| 8 |
> > | available for any source package. So after the move, the next world |
| 9 |
> > | update should re-merge the correct, complete package. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Uh... You also completely break packages/. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My only excuse is that we only did it for package.masked ebuilds (i.e. |
| 14 |
> ebuilds for which all versions that ever existed had always been |
| 15 |
> package.masked, and hadn't existed for very long anyway). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> But again, what's the proper way to merge packages? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
With package.mask'ed packages, it would have been better to just drop them |
| 20 |
altogether. For unmasked packages, you would just replace them with skeletons |
| 21 |
that dep on the replacement package. See the still existing |
| 22 |
sys-apps/fileutils-4.1.11-r2 ebuild. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives