| 1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. said the following: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives |
| 4 |
> off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since |
| 5 |
> it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of |
| 6 |
> pre-release. Which they won't find. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The whole point is to make it clearer to the user the relation of the |
| 9 |
> sources to upstream. Instead of making them fit into our naming schema, |
| 10 |
> which do not apply to all. |
| 11 |
<snip> |
| 12 |
> The whole idea is better clarification to the end user via package name. |
| 13 |
> Instead of package being tagged as _pre or etc, and sources being tagged |
| 14 |
> with -dev and/or coming from a developers space. Not main project |
| 15 |
> release page or etc. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Hi guys, |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As one of the aforementioned users, I think the goal of helping us get a |
| 20 |
better idea of the "reliability" a given package is excellent. I was |
| 21 |
looking at the GLEP list the other day, and one of them that I liked in |
| 22 |
particular was GLEP 46. (Allow upstream tags in metadata). I think it |
| 23 |
could have some bearing on this goal. Although the GLEP doesn't list |
| 24 |
"upstream-version" as one of its proposed metadata tags, I think it |
| 25 |
could fit in nicely. I have no clue what the status of that GLEP is, |
| 26 |
but maybe the authors would? Personally, I think it sounds like a good |
| 27 |
flexible way of adding information to an ebuild without needing to redo |
| 28 |
the naming scheme, or the upgrade path. Here, you could use one of the |
| 29 |
existing ways of naming the package, but in the metadata give the |
| 30 |
information a user would want to evaluate the package's reliability |
| 31 |
(plus more!) :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-nkm |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives