| 1 |
On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 02:53, Tod M. Neidt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 01:39, Tod M Neidt wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 00:12, Arcady Genkin wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I've modified the existing ebuilds for the latest 0.9 alsa. |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > 1. My first question is about the version numbering of the portage. |
| 7 |
> > > Alsa's own version numbering doesn't fit very nicely into gentoo's |
| 8 |
> > > guidelines. I translated 0.9.0b10 into 0.9.0_beta10, which worked |
| 9 |
> > > fine. However, how do I deal with something like 0.9.0b10a? |
| 10 |
> > > 0.9.0_beta10a doesn't work, so I kept it simply at 0.9.10_beta10 |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I would probably name it, -0.9.0a_beta10 (I think thats a legal portage |
| 13 |
> > version scheme). |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> Ok, I was wrong. The trailing letter doesn't work in conjuction with |
| 16 |
> _beta (or _alpha for that matter). Doh, note to self, "Review Developer |
| 17 |
> HOTO." |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I guess I'll name it alsa-*-0.9.0.10a.ebuild, unless someone has a |
| 20 |
> better suggestion. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
Ok, ok how about this |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
alsa-driver-0.9.0_beta10.ebuild |
| 25 |
alsa-lib-0.9.0.1_beta10.ebuild |
| 26 |
alsa-util-0.9.0.1_beta10.ebuild |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The .1's will correspond to the "a" beta suffix of the tarball. That |
| 29 |
way we can go to 0.9.0.2 and so on if they happend to release another |
| 30 |
beta10 version and the users will still know that it is a beta from the |
| 31 |
ebuild name. (I hope the release alsa-1.0 soon so this just goes away :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I will also try to throw together ebuilds for the alsa tools and OSS |
| 34 |
Compat library. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
tod |
Archives