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 1Hgkkx-00002h-Pg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:54:16 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3PGrBMS009464; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:53:11 GMT Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org (170.Red-213-96-222.staticIP.rima-tde.net [213.96.222.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3PGnocD004493 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:49:51 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7CA8D33B for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:29:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.ferdyx.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tungsteno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14164-10 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:29:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from snowflake (unknown [62.6.163.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.ferdyx.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E8C8D305 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:29:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:49:47 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 Message-ID: <20070425174947.62f8284a@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <9fce88250704250940j1336ef1ev5beec127d03f7677@mail.gmail.com> References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> <200704242311.46269.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E71E1.7000704@gentoo.org> <9fce88250704242355n3744e592p303fa81c4f9b55f7@mail.gmail.com> <1177517569.15811.61.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <9fce88250704250940j1336ef1ev5beec127d03f7677@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (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: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_vdDp7cAfJ02M4WmqKRJ+3uS; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ferdyx.org X-Archives-Salt: 3ed344c4-27a1-4b0c-9a16-1c6e3301df79 X-Archives-Hash: dfc5b289f39ca09d183085f9b6e987ad --Sig_vdDp7cAfJ02M4WmqKRJ+3uS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:40:17 +0200 "Jakub Moc" wrote: > Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is > near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really > fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining > packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is > gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of > sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all > the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and > elsewhere in this debate). The issue is that it's a not particularly nice package manager feature that's only needed for two packages. In general in those situations the solution is to use some kind of workaround for the small number of affected packages rather than making things even more complicated than they already are. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_vdDp7cAfJ02M4WmqKRJ+3uS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGL4at96zL6DUtXhERAhaKAJ4vr1NSDJ1xb7lM806sy1bExStwlwCeP1Ku wC8Ifz5Ebv0b6gyjtxV/lx8= =+VLb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_vdDp7cAfJ02M4WmqKRJ+3uS-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list