[gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

Hi all,

In attempting to solve bug #29937 [1] I would like to add a CVS snapshot
of the current net-wireless/orinoco driver - but I am faced with a
problem trying to come up with a proper naming scheme for this new
ebuild.

The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
allowed by portage.

I can't go with just orinoco-0.15_pre20050516.ebuild as _rcX is
considered newer than _preY.

I guess I could go with a simple -rX bump, but that wouldn't really
reflect what the ebuild is - and I'd hate to have to add either a live
CVS ebuild or a brand new net-wireless/orinoco-usb ebuild, since that
would duplicate functionality, add unnecessary blocking etc.

Ideas for a better solution to this will be most welcome.

Sincerely,
Brix 

[1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29937
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 924 bytes --]

Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I guess I could go with a simple -rX bump, but that wouldn't really
> reflect what the ebuild is - and I'd hate to have to add either a live
> CVS ebuild or a brand new net-wireless/orinoco-usb ebuild, since that
> would duplicate functionality, add unnecessary blocking etc.

You're probably going to need to do a -rX bump, but you can do it in a
way that more closely approximates the intent of the -rX system. Rather
than doing a live CVS checkout, use `cvs diff` to create a patchset.
Bumps of the -rX nature are often used to indicate patchlevel
increments. The patches could be tossed in the files/ directory or on
the Gentoo mirrors if it turns out to be very large.

Hope some of that was useful.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 417 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 15:04 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
> for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
> orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
> allowed by portage.

I meant to write 'orinoco-0.15_rc3_pre20050516.ebuild' of course.

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
> for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
> orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
> allowed by portage.
> 
> I can't go with just orinoco-0.15_pre20050516.ebuild as _rcX is
> considered newer than _preY.

How about rc2_p20050516?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCiOp3XVaO67S1rtsRAok8AKD3dkxsKsP+zr4F72UgRcEkGzvhYwCfVwB0
KxOD3PruBa+zU5McrlWD5F8=
=7q8G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

maillog: 16/05/2005-11:46:15(-0700): Donnie Berkholz types
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
> > for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
> > orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
> > allowed by portage.
> > 
> > I can't go with just orinoco-0.15_pre20050516.ebuild as _rcX is
> > considered newer than _preY.
> 
> How about rc2_p20050516?

For a moment I thought that the above may actually be valid... Good
thing it's not. I would have been confused.

-- 
|    Georgi Georgiev   |   Oh, well, of course, everything looks bad   |
|     chutz@gg3.net    |  if you remember it. -- Homer Simpson El      |
|   +81(90)2877-8845   |  Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Homer            |

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Marius Mauch]

Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> maillog: 16/05/2005-11:46:15(-0700): Donnie Berkholz types
> 
>>Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
>>>for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
>>>orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
>>>allowed by portage.
>>>
>>>I can't go with just orinoco-0.15_pre20050516.ebuild as _rcX is
>>>considered newer than _preY.
>>
>>How about rc2_p20050516?
> 
> 
> For a moment I thought that the above may actually be valid... Good
> thing it's not. I would have been confused.
> 

Well, it's valid with portage-2.1, but not 2.0.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]

On Monday 16 May 2005 15:04, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>
> The current ebuild is orinoco-0.15_rc2-r2.ebuild, and the logical name
> for a CVS snapshot would, as I see it, be
> orinoco-0.15_rc2_pre20050516.ebuild, but mixing _rcX and _preY is not
> allowed by portage.

in any case it should be _pY as your snapshot is newer than the current 
version. _p stands for patch level, _pre for prerelease. In case of cvs 
ebuilds patch levels are more appropriate as the new version is often not 
known.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 311 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 May 2005 10:27, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> Well, it's valid with portage-2.1, but not 2.0.

Concerning that, how far are we from it being testable by the general 
developer population?

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 403 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 15:23 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> in any case it should be _pY as your snapshot is newer than the current 
> version. _p stands for patch level, _pre for prerelease. In case of cvs 
> ebuilds patch levels are more appropriate as the new version is often not 
> known.

Thanks - I'll keep that in mind.

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]