| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> John Mylchreest wrote: |
| 3 |
> >Since were bunlding these whole now, should we just start naming the |
| 4 |
> >ebuilds correctly instead? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I don't think so. 2 -stable releases in the 2.6.15 cycle didn't have any |
| 7 |
> immediate corresponding gentoo-sources bump since the patches were |
| 8 |
> already included. The fact that we include patches alongside -stable |
| 9 |
> means that using their notation isn't entirely accurate in our situation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Both naming schemes have their advantages, but I see more |
| 12 |
disadvantages with using the 2.6.x.y naming scheme in gentoo-sources |
| 13 |
than I see advantages (primarily the reason Daniel stated above). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I suggest we keep the current naming scheme for gentoo-sources, as it |
| 16 |
seems most correct. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Regards, |
| 19 |
Brix |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o> |
| 22 |
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd |
Archives