| 1 |
On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction |
| 3 |
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place |
| 4 |
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Council screwed up. |
| 7 |
> Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this |
| 8 |
> crap. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is |
| 11 |
near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really |
| 12 |
fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining |
| 13 |
packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is |
| 14 |
gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of |
| 15 |
sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all |
| 16 |
the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and |
| 17 |
elsewhere in this debate). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It's not like that the maintainers would use such stuff because 'oh |
| 20 |
it's so cooool to have multiple version suffixes, I must commit at |
| 21 |
least one such ebuild'. What's exactly your 'sane version |
| 22 |
specification' that you ask the maintainers of such ebuilds to move |
| 23 |
them to 'as soon as possible'? And why's moving them ASAP exactly |
| 24 |
needed? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Jakub Moc |
| 28 |
Email: jakub.moc@×××××.com |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives