| 1 |
Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems |
| 5 |
>>> that nobody |
| 6 |
>>> read it: |
| 7 |
>>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated |
| 8 |
>>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and |
| 9 |
>>> only |
| 10 |
>>> ] increment $PR singly. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should |
| 13 |
>>> probably be |
| 14 |
>>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values. |
| 15 |
>> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code, |
| 16 |
>> not upstream code. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream, |
| 19 |
>> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Thanks, |
| 22 |
>> Donnie |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> +1 |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while |
| 27 |
> back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we |
| 28 |
> worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established |
| 29 |
> that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yeah stubbs loved that -rX :) |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives