Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:38
1 Recently dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 (explicit -r0 in ebuild name) was
2 commited to mainline gentoo-x86; as far as I know, this is in conflict
3 w/ long term practice of not explicitly specifying -r0 in the ebuild
4 name due to the implicit -r0 addition in comparison/atom matching.
5 At this point, said ebuild is the only one in the tree with an
6 explicit -r0 also, so I'm advocating having the -r0 dropped.
8 The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on
9 leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems
10 folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to
11 problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo.
13 Expanding on that one a bit, either -r0 should be required, or it must
14 be left off- reason is simple, if you had both 1.1.0 and 1.1.0-r0 in a
15 repo, and due to dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 == dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0
16 via the implicit -r0 rule, there is no defined sorting order there.
18 Literally, if both are there which version on disk the manager
19 used would be indeterminant at worst, pkg manager specific at best.
21 I've opened a pms bug (21543) to get this corrected in docs, but
22 again, emailing to ensure there is consensus- so kindly chime in as
23 to which it should be. Personally I'm for preserving the unofficial
24 long term rule of dropping -r0 from the ebuild name itself, but
25 y'alls show, so speak up.
27 ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
[gentoo-dev] Re: explicit -r0 in ebuild filename "Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-" <msterret@××××.com>