| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:42:44PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:39:26 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage |
| 6 |
> > releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as |
| 7 |
> > simple as possible without castrating it's use. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So to you having to understand two slightly different comparison algorithms is simpler than one? Can't agree with that, the simplest defintion for `bar` is `see foo` if `foo` is already known. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And as for the final letter in versions/revisions: If upstream sometimes prefers this naming scheme, why are you so sure that other people (users) won't prefer it? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't think we need the versioning to be this complex. All we want to |
| 15 |
provide is the capability for people to have local patch levels. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As far as the "=apache-2.0.58-r2.1.3" issue not working in |
| 18 |
dependencies, we can just ignore everything after the "major" revision |
| 19 |
number in dependency calculation and only compare it against |
| 20 |
"apache-2.0.58-r2". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm going to hack up a patch with floated revision numbers, but in one |
| 23 |
sense I think my original patch is actually a little better: It will |
| 24 |
make it obvious to ebuild developers that this is a feature they |
| 25 |
shouldn't be using in gentoo-x86 tree. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It would also be a little easier to drop the "-l1" in |
| 28 |
"apache-2.0.58-r2-l1" than it would be to remove certain parts of |
| 29 |
"-r#.#" from a version number. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Marius |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives