From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgSzK-0003kI-9O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:55:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OLt3S2006490; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:55:03 GMT Received: from ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OLpV3F001638 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:51:31 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:33915 helo=maya) by ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.153]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1HgSun-0005Eo-9x (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:51:13 +0100 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:05:59 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Message-ID: <20070424230559.4231dafc@maya> In-Reply-To: <462E79D3.8070304@gentoo.org> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> <200704242320.05879.peper@gentoo.org> <200704242324.02466.peper@gentoo.org> <462E79D3.8070304@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.7.2 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 2dff333f-db98-446d-81c1-25fe22c38de1 X-Archives-Hash: db0c5c795786acd951e29d5d6f039776 On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:42:43 +0200 Jurek Bartuszek wrote: > And there you have another flaw of this system - how am I supposed to > predict if I'll ever need the "extended" _rc versioning in case of > that one particular package? I think that massive ebuild renaming is > definietly not an option. Try reading what he wrote. You can trivially switch to the longer _rc system; you'll just have to keep using it until the next release if you do. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list