| 1 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:09:38 -0700, "Imran Sher Rafique" |
| 2 |
<imran@×××××××.org> said: |
| 3 |
> I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a rant. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Summary |
| 6 |
> ------- |
| 7 |
> Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without |
| 8 |
> changing the |
| 9 |
> ebuild version number? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Unfortunately yes ;-). This also has been a problem for |
| 12 |
packages.gentoo.org code, because I basically have to make a series of |
| 13 |
assumptions as to when an ebuild is considered "new" or "updated". |
| 14 |
Originally I thought I could just just look at the timestamps on the |
| 15 |
ebuilds, but that turned out to be a very bad determiniation of when an |
| 16 |
ebuild has changed. Then I thought revision numbers, but that's |
| 17 |
innacurate too. Basically now it comes down to looking at the current |
| 18 |
ebuild in portage and comparing it to the last time I looked at it. |
| 19 |
It's much more expensive, because you have to look at *every* ebuild, |
| 20 |
not just "ebuilds changed since x date/time" or "ebuilds newer than |
| 21 |
version y". Oh no, now I sound like I'm ranting ;-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-m |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives