| 1 |
On 14:56 Fri 12 Sep , Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Icedtea has two release tracks. One for the 1.7 OpenJDK code base and |
| 4 |
> > one for the 1.6 code base. They have independent version numbering so |
| 5 |
> > they can have collisions. By moving the slot to the file name we could |
| 6 |
> > have icedtea-1.2:1.6.ebuildN and icedtea-1.2:1.7.ebuildN. This |
| 7 |
> > particular situation can be worked around of course but it might also |
| 8 |
> > be better to keep the slot in the file name any way because I often |
| 9 |
> > find myself needing to know the slot of an ebuild (adjutrix -k of |
| 10 |
> > course already does this for me quite nicely). |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Regards, |
| 13 |
> > Petteri |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> What's wrong with icedtea17-1.2 and icedtea16-1.2, because if its two |
| 16 |
> different code bases that come up with two different tarballs that could |
| 17 |
> be versioned differently or same that is the definition of a different |
| 18 |
> package. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Have you considered reordering the versions it slightly, like this? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
icedtea-1.7.${version} (SLOT=1.7) |
| 23 |
icedtea-1.6.${version} (SLOT=1.6) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This allows you to keep it in the same package name and thus be more |
| 26 |
similar to how upstream handles it. The SLOT still allows for useful |
| 27 |
dependencies, and people installing "any icedtea" will automatically get |
| 28 |
the newest one without having to somehow choose which of multiple |
| 29 |
package names is right. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Donnie |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 36 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 37 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives