| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it |
| 4 |
> with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have |
| 7 |
been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. |
| 8 |
Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in |
| 9 |
any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex |
| 10 |
proposal, or the silent rules proposal. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in |
| 13 |
> this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest |
| 14 |
> version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should |
| 15 |
> be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer |
| 16 |
> 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 |
| 19 |
version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 |
| 20 |
version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a |
| 21 |
newer GCC and so on. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives