| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek: |
| 2 |
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From |
| 3 |
> > #gentoo-council earlier: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to |
| 6 |
> > "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, $MONTH,$DAY |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package |
| 9 |
> foo-0.1_rc2 released (very outdated) and we're waiting for |
| 10 |
> foo-0.1_rc3. Then example of something between those two would be |
| 11 |
> foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would that force portage to update to this |
| 12 |
> version? Wouldn't that prevent portage from enforcing update to _rc3 |
| 13 |
> when it's delivered? Of course I might be wrong and if this is the |
| 14 |
> case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
_rc2-rYYYYMMDD |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Danny |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
| 25 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives