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 1HgSYN-0004vo-NP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:28:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OLOt1H023106; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:24:55 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OLKElf015831 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:20:14 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so262074ugc for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=Z3s4QUHZyIKTvCU9HclY8znnGDXC/u0tptpRkV5Lshva748eFRq7xZlrLZdWRHZ0zYgIDSikEHSsM09GEqG2v1Vx4RIS2HMWJ7M5gRy9Zx7dmpip5Wt0JBZHq/MEh9JYiaoKswGH7PYyaFdK11C2xS88GXhk6aTe6ad37a+0+SE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=Hpjm/XcSpkvtBBK+nTzupnFbw5FveehdBScr6JFVAYT6AWqDDyumtbv8mvkPDMv7z6QFqZoGpt7Oc824+KPtySy9+QNSJui7Je66lcLz5ZNzlgVZMhcVdStFylnqTQMLKj4wBKExC+qfnQj169KgAC4SRkxE2x3NHH1FdrgRXtI= Received: by 10.82.146.14 with SMTP id t14mr11718871bud.1177449614392; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phoebe.lan ( [82.210.165.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w5sm14186419mue.2007.04.24.14.20.12; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Piotr =?iso-8859-2?q?Jaroszy=F1ski?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:20:05 +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> 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: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704242320.05879.peper@gentoo.org> Sender: =?UTF-8?B?UGlvdHIgSmFyb3N6ecWEc2tp?= X-Archives-Salt: 61feb5d4-18f7-4375-a53a-bc0a69e8ca54 X-Archives-Hash: 25fe2a586773feac92a2a3e747607b2f On Tuesday 24 of April 2007 22:47:00 Jurek Bartuszek wrote: > 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 = ;) foo-0.1_rc2 < foo-0.1_rc000220070313 < foo-0.1_rc3 =2D-=20 Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszy=F1ski -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list