| 1 |
> > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From |
| 2 |
> > #gentoo-council earlier: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, |
| 5 |
> > $MONTH,$DAY |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2 |
| 8 |
> released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example |
| 9 |
> of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would |
| 10 |
> that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent |
| 11 |
> portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I |
| 12 |
> might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I was planning to post the same question and then I reread danny's and |
| 16 |
robin's mails : |
| 17 |
what rc3 will actually be named is something like : |
| 18 |
_rc000300000000 |
| 19 |
not a very funky name but like that portage will see it as > |
| 20 |
rc000220070313, otherwise rc3 is < rc000220070313 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch |
| 23 |
upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such |
| 24 |
multiple suffixes. |
| 25 |
[And that'll make us differ from upstream naming scheme for the whole |
| 26 |
_rc series] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Alexis. |
Archives