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 1SiUOq-0007NX-3X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:45:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B603E0CB6; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0515E01A3 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (92.Red-2-137-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.8.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7AFD1B4063 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:44:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20120623183053.6d432605@googlemail.com> References: <20120623142143.631d7ebf@googlemail.com> <4FE5EB23.5040600@gentoo.org> <20120623171704.4f24cba6@googlemail.com> <4FE5F31E.80608@gentoo.org> <20120623175324.038ca62e@googlemail.com> <1340472237.5979.75.camel@belkin4> <20120623183053.6d432605@googlemail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-AOxFVvzrjJyolJ66dzI4" Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 Message-ID: <1340473390.5979.76.camel@belkin4> 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 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 X-Archives-Salt: cc050e80-27c3-41b4-8f57-8632e4864c4d X-Archives-Hash: 4e1a77f3072e5a01f404d3184ffec2a9 --=-AOxFVvzrjJyolJ66dzI4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El s=C3=A1b, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribi=C3=B3: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it > > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread? >=20 > Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have > been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. > Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in > any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex > proposal, or the silent rules proposal. >=20 > > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in > > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest > > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should > > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer > > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. >=20 > It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 > version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 > version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a > newer GCC and so on. >=20 And what problems is that causing for you? --=-AOxFVvzrjJyolJ66dzI4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/mAC4ACgkQCaWpQKGI+9TyfwCcDTnB74qnbfX7z6sJM8qiYheb J68An068jrFwy3FCB/oo4JfKRFgY19sP =8ZLn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-AOxFVvzrjJyolJ66dzI4--