| 1 |
Wouldn't it seem most reasonable for the ebuild author to create |
| 2 |
snapshots, test them, and have those snapshots merged into Portage? Then |
| 3 |
the package can be repackaged at a later date, tested again and released. |
| 4 |
This also allows you to use the date as the version number, bypassing any |
| 5 |
problems with the naming conventions. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I agree that hourly build releases should not make it into the portage |
| 8 |
tree unmasked. Perhaps masking such packages or creating an experimental |
| 9 |
organizational unit under portage for such packages to live would be |
| 10 |
advantageous. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Blake |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Dan Naumov wrote: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:30:37 -0700 |
| 18 |
> Jeremiah Mahler <jmahler@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > But suppose someone did want an ebuild for the hourly CVS snapshots? |
| 21 |
> > How should it be named? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> My personal belief is that ebuilds of hourly CVS snapshots should never leave the PORTDIR_OVERLAY of the original author. IMHO, Gentoo Portage is no place for autogenerated, untested CVS stuff. How are you going to go around non-compiling snapshots of broken trees and new compile options that appear from time to timw anyways ? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ebuilds should be writted for things that are "set in stone" and don't go around changing on an hourly basis. You really don't want to have 2 users run "emerge blah" and get different versions of the same program, even though "emerge -u rsync" was run at the same time. This would be a horrible mess (which is currently the case with QuakeForge ebuild). |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Sincerely, |
| 28 |
> Dan Naumov aka Jago |
| 29 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 30 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 31 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 32 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 33 |
> |
Archives