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 1M64SR-0008S9-QF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF7ABE02EB; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA5AE02EB for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61099654EC for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.757 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.757 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPrMJFMXhaen for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E9D6525A for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1M64SD-0002xR-Ji for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:37 +0000 Received: from 91.84.77.8 ([91.84.77.8]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:37 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.84.77.8 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:08:37 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steven J Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 Organization: Friendly-Coders Message-ID: <12688336.dTPDegVI1m@news.friendly-coders.info> References: <7c612fc60905170920k22189731i2540514e24e60959@mail.gmail.com> <18960.18295.65849.57779@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4A104BCE.7000001@gentoo.org> <4A107F05.7020001@gentoo.org> <20090517222016.3164b564@snowmobile> <4A1089E6.7070909@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.84.77.8 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 0ea8bb83-962e-4807-bf2d-1e11fb12221b X-Archives-Hash: 91b0b3917837f27f08003a6d7ea1a553 Joe Peterson wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> 3. "Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the >>> scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like >>> 1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely." >>> Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably >>> well. I don't see any need to match upstream more closely. I'd rather >>> like to keep the more uniform way of handling suffixes like rc and >>> alpha, that we have now. >> >> Please explain why 1.2_rc3 is legal but 1.2-rc3 is not. > > I actually like the current format in that it does *not* allow "-" in > the version. For example, pkg-2.3.1_rc5 makes it clear that the string > from "2" to "rc5" is the version. If were were to allow pkg-2.3.1-rc5, > this could get visually confusing (looks a bit like pkg-2.3.1-r5). In > this case, *less* flexibility and more strict rules serve a good > purpose, I think. > Agreed; the purpose of an internal format specification is not to allow NN variants on a theme all over the place. It should nail things down to ONE variant which everybody can collaborate around. I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at least 5 years. Until I see that happening independently of this current hooha, I'm going to consider this 'reason' to be yaf "straw man". -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)