| 1 |
On Monday 01 November 2004 15:52, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hmmm... tough question. Currently 729 ebuilds in the portage tree uses |
| 3 |
> ${KV} and only 57 use ${KV_PATCH}. It seems that many ebuilds rely on |
| 4 |
> knowing the kernel version but not many rely on knowing the kernel |
| 5 |
> version in details. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That isn't exactly the point here - portage does parse out all of those things |
| 8 |
in order to construct $KV anyway, so could very easily be extended to also |
| 9 |
provide $KV_MAJOR etc etc. Regardless of numbers, where do you feel is the |
| 10 |
better place for parsing the kernel version details? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm in favour of the eclass, I don't think it makes sense for portage to find |
| 13 |
the version string on emerge of every package. And, in situations like this |
| 14 |
(with localversion appearing) its easier for us to extend the code to support |
| 15 |
it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Daniel |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives