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 1LhR2d-0002fr-SW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:12:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA9F2E03E0; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6DAE03E0 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.92] (83-103-77-215.ip.fastwebnet.it [83.103.77.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25C064B52; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:12:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49B7E2DF.60805@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:12:15 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) 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 To: Ciaran McCreesh CC: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal References: <20090310234231.3e664575@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49B78AA8.4000101@gentoo.org> <20090311141327.11cc865d@snowcone> <49B7D6B9.2040606@gentoo.org> <20090311154416.2f79324c@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090311154416.2f79324c@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8744d6c6-94b7-455f-8f5e-772ebe15ad26 X-Archives-Hash: a91b157887d5f9f80bb4ca432ea63a4d Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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] >>> 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. >> 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. > I know, if you are re emerging you have those information, if you are updating you won't have them. That's why either the U or the revision information is wrong. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero