Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote:
>
>> Hierarchy would be the following
>>
>> snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta ....
>
> And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself _snapshot is
> something universal so it doesn't really fit anywhere in the chain.
> Similar for _build, it usually runs parallel to normal versioning (a
> release also has a build number). Don't know about _dev, never seen a
> package where that would be useful myself.
> And as has been said, there are compability issues. At best older
> portage versions would ignore ebuilds using these new suffixes
> resulting in confused users, worst case stuff starts breaking.
> If you want to pursue this you should get some numbers of how many
> packages could actually make use of these new features, it simply isn't
> worth thinking about it for just a handful of packages.
>
> Marius

One thing we could do would be to separate hierarchy from version naming. That way we can allow
arbitrary version names and also smoothly traverse version scheme changes such that break hierarchy.
This would prevent cases like currently with rosegarden (~)1.2.4 (~)1.4.0 4.1.0-r1 4.1.0-r2, where
it really should be 4.1.0-r1 4.1.0-r2 (~)1.2.4 (~)1.4.0.

We could also add an internal version which would be compared first and only if it is equal for
packages would the version in the ebuild name be used for ordering.

Just throwing some ideas out there,

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF+7jup/VmCx0OL2wRAhszAJwNo29AEj6rOSlimu+sbi8OwUPeKgCePo2g
2g1sI/Tk+ZYnRQ0j8b7d+44=
=SdRi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list