| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:37:14 +0100 |
| 2 |
Per Wigren <wigren@××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The problem is that SmallEiffel is about to be renamed to SmartEiffel.. |
| 5 |
> The current stable release is SmallEiffel v0.74, but it will be soon be |
| 6 |
> renamed to SmartEiffel when it becomes v1.0 (it's currently 1.0beta5).. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For now, call it smalleiffel-0.74. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
When smarteiffel-1.0 comes out, we'll slowly phase out smalleiffel. We |
| 11 |
don't yet have any way to "rename" or "supercede" packages; it is expected |
| 12 |
that the users keep track of what they want to have installed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The alternative is to never bother about smalleiffel in the the first |
| 15 |
place, and just start by packagaging smarteiffel-1.0_beta5, if it is |
| 16 |
stable enough to be used for anything. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Another problem is that the filenames doesn't contain the |
| 20 |
> version-number... All versions are named se.tgz so this will cause a |
| 21 |
> problem when upgrading if the old one is still in distfiles... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Then we don't want to deal with them ;) Ask the upstream maintainers to |
| 24 |
append a proper version tag to their tarballs. If they don't, this is |
| 25 |
going to become a high maintainenance ebuild, as we'll have to manually |
| 26 |
keep a mirror of the tarballs, rename them with version tags, etc, etc, |
| 27 |
and that means it'll get lower priority than it needs to, simply because |
| 28 |
we have a finite amount of time, and cannot justify spending a lot of time |
| 29 |
on one package unless it's a central/crucial one. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Karl T |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives