Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Atom matching behavior

[Brian Harring]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:12:46PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> > > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > > Was just brought to my attention that the =* operator doesn't
> > > > > work as I thought, as for example =foo-1.2* matches foo-1.20 as
> > > > > well as foo-1.2.3.
> > > <snip>
> > > > > but I'd suspect that many people share my original assumption
> > > > > and expect it to only match full version components
> > > >
> > > > Hear a bit of screaming from it once every 4-6 months; personally,
> > > > I interpret that as devs know which to use usually- additionally,
> > > > once the (bluntly) hissy fit from the dev subsides, and they're
> > > > reminded "yes it's annoying, but if you want it changed take it to
> > > > dev to get consensus" folks promptly forget about it.
> > >
> > > You mean a consensus on -dev like the one regarding the Sunrise
> > > project?
> > >
> > > > Either they're silently working around it, or it's not that much
> > > > of an issue (I suspect the latter, but am neutral towards the
> > > > change).
> > >
> > > Or ignoring it because it's not worth the heartache. Or they feel it
> > > to be more likely that their input will be rejected by devs who just
> > > don't feel like working on it, but also don't want their babies
> > > touched by foreign hands. See Bug #69343 and everything marked as a
> > > dupe against it for a fine example of that mentality.
> >
> > Either you're trolling, or your whinging (bluntly).
>
> Mostly trolling, but it's a valid point. The technical issue is not
> nearly as daunting as the political one.

And not doing something because of fear of screaming/politics means 
that those using such tools get their way (one of the few cases where 
it pays to be a stubborn bastard who'll kick back).

Meanwhile, this _is_ thread hijacking, getting back to the subject is 
a better use of folks time and channels normally sane s/n ratio.

Besides...  People aren't going to bitch about this one, it's a matter 
of trying to keep people in the loop rather then portages usual modus 
operandi of just slipping changes in, with portage devs being the ones 
knowing about it (and yes, I was guilty of it in the past too). :)

This *should* require an EAPI bump, so at the very least repoman will 
need a few tweaks, and people will need to be educated a bit re: the 
fact the version op. behaves differently for EAPI0 vs EAPI1.
~harring