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 1HgSI0-0002Fk-NK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:11:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OL9TjF009539; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:09:29 GMT Received: from smtp1-g19.free.fr (smtp1-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.27]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OL76Kg006512 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:07:06 GMT Received: from localhost (toz.strangled.net [82.232.126.136]) by smtp1-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id DF44FB92E6 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:07:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:06:50 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Message-Id: <20070424230650.8bff1ad2.aballier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <19541.166.70.55.210.1177442155.squirrel@wonkabar.org> <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; x86_64-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: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__24_Apr_2007_23_06_50_+0200_8bjHsTQd8H/dSTzb" X-Archives-Salt: ae59ceb7-cdc9-4b5b-bf7d-2b2d25cd1a55 X-Archives-Hash: f6c9f889d1b68db95dc6a370607c8845 --Signature=_Tue__24_Apr_2007_23_06_50_+0200_8bjHsTQd8H/dSTzb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From > > #gentoo-council earlier: > > > > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, > > $MONTH,$DAY > > Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2 > released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example > of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would > that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent > portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I > might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;) I was planning to post the same question and then I reread danny's and robin's mails : what rc3 will actually be named is something like : _rc000300000000 not a very funky name but like that portage will see it as > rc000220070313, otherwise rc3 is < rc000220070313 that also means doing some funky $P renamings in the ebuild to catch upstream _rc3 tarball, but that's probably better than allowing such multiple suffixes. [And that'll make us differ from upstream naming scheme for the whole _rc series] Regards, Alexis. --Signature=_Tue__24_Apr_2007_23_06_50_+0200_8bjHsTQd8H/dSTzb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGLnFqvFcC4BYPU0oRAkW9AKDEy0AKk5ZKr4Dfcxt5ZN2tQWOnxQCgzpV1 e2oAhiVUDuZjr+setAGjUhg= =FCy/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__24_Apr_2007_23_06_50_+0200_8bjHsTQd8H/dSTzb-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list