| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this |
| 5 |
>> oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at |
| 6 |
>> least 5 years. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? |
| 9 |
> Anything that finally lets us kill that off has to be good... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I have to disagree. As Steve said, the fact that Gentoo has a strict |
| 12 |
way to specify versions brings clarity and uniformity to our tree, |
| 13 |
regardless of the myriad upstream conventions. I do not think that |
| 14 |
allowing all of those upstream conventions in our filenames is a |
| 15 |
benefit. It is actually quite ugly and would make the tree harder to |
| 16 |
comprehend. Someone looking at various packages in our tree would need |
| 17 |
to learn each specific upstream format in order to make sense of the |
| 18 |
filename content. The current consistency in versions in the tree is a |
| 19 |
great feature, IMHO. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Using versionator and $MY_PV is, as I see it, a translation method. It |
| 22 |
gives us the best of both worlds: the ability to deal with upstream |
| 23 |
versions and a consistent Gentoo version format. These mechanisms could |
| 24 |
certainly be improved upon, of course, and handling some cases is |
| 25 |
currently difficult, as is handing the case in which upstream's tarball |
| 26 |
file does not contain the version, but these are fixable issues. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-Joe |
Archives