| 1 |
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:39:02 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on |
| 4 |
> leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems |
| 5 |
> folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to |
| 6 |
> problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Uniquely indentifying an ebuild is an issue regardless of whether or |
| 9 |
not -r0 is allowed. See PMS section 2.4. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Even ignoring the unique identifiers, banning explicit -r0 globally is |
| 12 |
inconsistent anyway. We already allow and use _alpha and _alpha0 (which |
| 13 |
mean the same thing) and so on. You'd also be forcing special-casing of |
| 14 |
eclasses that would otherwise just use PVR in dep strings. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs 'fixed' |
| 17 |
via specification next time... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives