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 1HgS6u-0002jq-Rx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:59:41 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OKw6Ck026943; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:58:06 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OKtgJX023941 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:55:42 GMT Received: from phi.witten.lan (p83.129.4.43.tisdip.tiscali.de [83.129.4.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897DD6526C for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:55:41 +0000 (UTC) From: Danny van Dyk Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:11:45 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> X-Face: =?utf-8?q?57Z3foFdBj=3BKdmU=5EFM=2Eec=5C4=7BQf/F6=25ePh=5C=5DM=5EaXPX*=5D?= =?utf-8?q?J5S=7CM=7E+vR=3F=24iW=5Cn44=5E2sguPTOtw=0A=09fe+7gKTm*!OXGQPYqML?= =?utf-8?q?=7CL1ezSI3-=27E=25zxZigvAK?=>3$?~'4IPBoi\H2)pV6U(26V@ =?utf-8?q?jq=7CAIp=0A=09yY?=>'!D}EOi=Q+-|CIh-d4riWfZZ">G.Rj!}78kX$8Zt0:epNWTo[{_/zJb< =?utf-8?q?Ud=2Eon=7EprEW*=0A=09tIvqI=7B+e=3AgMC?= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704242311.46269.kugelfang@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: d33ca661-58c4-44f7-b591-f071a92c6b19 X-Archives-Hash: d3508cafc2e4e671c064d8e6008e4533 Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek: > > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From > > #gentoo-council earlier: > > > > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to > > "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$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 foo-0.1_rc2 released (very outdated) and we're waiting for 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 ;) Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this: _rc2-rYYYYMMDD Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0. Danny -- Danny van Dyk Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list