From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LhQbe-000150-2i for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:44:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C464BE00AD; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f173.google.com (mail-ew0-f173.google.com [209.85.219.173]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564B6E00AD for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so51551ewy.34 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=0fhTnyDJj4W1PnJuUwPYjcGvPmykvEkYUFvnQ/ukjGU=; b=YEE2+DlSPEdpnl8+4FpHk2DIsEHqQmFJfWG2LE5jdBOOulFNTKkoaOO2q72+ylHyes ITIAHRmws83LM9lYXCd2aTVw7jzpGtYfkaorYr2aTh0dUwUCnsKyQulyP4MKIsA2OjgS 5V7EAGbMxHGnb8GNtZ2UNHpDm1z5EIvVAyy9I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=TiqzaLxwQWf0NFWj3OciffIWMnPRMkoWTspuFyiBjywzpuwDn5DOqAdsCZxghMfcMp Ux+wtFIy3oDnlSfRkXp+tkDoTBNsHUj+0pbIzoqjcdbdwdzLzZvJ+4NlNVX6+4+TTCKA mCxU+UXbFPEjYdJ7smO0qkw59HXHlBAQ7csGo= Received: by 10.216.10.208 with SMTP id 58mr3490115wev.82.1236786267394; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm12089258nfu.18.2009.03.11.08.44.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:44:16 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: Luca Barbato Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal Message-ID: <20090311154416.2f79324c@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <49B7D6B9.2040606@gentoo.org> References: <20090310234231.3e664575@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49B78AA8.4000101@gentoo.org> <20090311141327.11cc865d@snowcone> <49B7D6B9.2040606@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/yLhbstc2UZ=btF09tyxcT29"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: c8efa13b-8810-49ee-8c57-7dea26692dfb X-Archives-Hash: dd1b630f23d367a20aea04689635ab56 --Sig_/yLhbstc2UZ=btF09tyxcT29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:20:25 +0100 Luca Barbato wrote: > >> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.0_pre20090310 [from svn master > >> r12345] > >=20 > > That claim right there is enough to show that you haven't thought > > about this at all. Your proposal is lots of handwaving magic, most > > of it unimplementable. I suggest you put together a reference > > implementation before promoting this idea any further. >=20 > What's wrong is U that should be R beside that there isn't much > magic... The U isn't the problem. The svn revision is the problem. You need to consider how the package manager would get the revision. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/yLhbstc2UZ=btF09tyxcT29 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm33FYACgkQ96zL6DUtXhELXwCg1aReqrTTES/wBBdq9gXUxZVT T0AAn1dRf+KgJRTeOjxMkRpGo2Um2H6/ =nKqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/yLhbstc2UZ=btF09tyxcT29--