Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

[Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh]

Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to
question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide
all the different intermediate development "sort of releases"
in our tree?

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> After reviewing
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules
>
>
> I still seem to be having to finagle version names for some packages. At
> the moment it would be nice if we also had the following suffixes
> available
>
> _dev
> Apache upstream, specifically Tomcat/mod_jk tends to do developer
> snapshots that they then host out of developer space. People do fetch
> bins and source from there for testing. It's kinda pre-release, so I
> have been using _pre where I would use _dev, but _pre does not make much
> sense.
>
> _build
> Other packages seem to do constant builds (weekly) of the same version.
> For example Glassfish (Sun's FOSS J2EE stuff). It's sources are v2-b39.
> So would be nice to be able to do like glassfish-servlet-api-2_build39
>
> _snapshot
> This one is kinda universal in it's name/implication. Would be for any
> sort of upstream snapshot release, that might not be versioned as such.
> Short of the name snapshot being some where.
>
> The above would then follow the rest of the normal schema, where in they
> could still be suffixed by a number, or not.
>
> Hierarchy would be the following
>
> snapshot -> dev -> build -> alpha -> beta ....
>
> Or at least that's my thoughts on it. Time for others thoughts, much
> less those that will make it so. Not expecting it to get done or be
> available any time soon. Would be suffice if they were just accepted and
> planned for inclusion at some point.
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list