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 1HgSUr-0001ZK-Q3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:24:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OLLwTw018310; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:21:58 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 l3OLJIgK014920 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:19:19 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 042C765260 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:19:18 +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 23:19:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <200704242311.46269.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E71E1.7000704@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <462E71E1.7000704@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: <200704242319.09995.kugelfang@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 104ccd9f-0cb1-4bf8-8ac2-63920445c9a1 X-Archives-Hash: 23f2d49028e0b465fb96e01908e3fc0b Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 schrieb Jurek Bartuszek: > > Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this: > > > > _rc2-rYYYYMMDD > > > > Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0. > > However, _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think > it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be > neccessary. I'd like to refer you that this is kind of 'best-practice' for the tree. Danny -- Danny van Dyk Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list