| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:39PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 30 March 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > those arent the same thing. -r# is a Gentoo-specific revision |
| 5 |
> > > marking. _alpha/_rc/etc... are used to track upstream. if upstream |
| 6 |
> > > uses _alpha0, then it makes our lives easier to also use _alpha0. |
| 7 |
> > > -r0 has no benefit and it isnt inconsistent as that portion of the |
| 8 |
> > > version is for Gentoo use only. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Every other part allows the magic 0 behaviour. Banning it for one part |
| 11 |
> > only is another one of those 'special case' rules we're trying to avoid |
| 12 |
> > because no-one knows them. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> i dont particularly care about -r0, i'm just stating that banning |
| 15 |
> _alpha0/etc... is not acceptable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Lay out your reasons please; the meaning doesn't differ (same version |
| 18 |
due to implicit 0 after all), and as I've pointed out an extreme |
| 19 |
minority are affected. Basically, looking to lock it down from a |
| 20 |
consistancy standpoint- in light of that, and that 15 ebuilds are |
| 21 |
affected out of ~24242, it's not seeming like it's losing much. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
~harring |
Archives