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 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IDIji-0001U8-TS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:39:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6OBcWH4011689; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:38:32 GMT Received: from mo-p07-ob.rzone.de (mo-p07-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.188]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6OBaWxt009274 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:36:32 GMT Received: from luna.home (u-6-006.vpn.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.102.6]) by post.webmailer.de (klopstock mo15) (RZmta 4.6) with ESMTP id U032ebj6OAhHhS for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:36:31 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:36:25 +0200 From: Christian Faulhammer To: "gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org" Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Forbid using versions in DESCRIPTION Message-ID: <20070724133625.065963b7@luna.home> In-Reply-To: <46A5DE60.50708@gentoo.org> References: <46A5DE60.50708@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.10.13; 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_P7IC_JO/NOq.Hp6Pgk7L70W"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-RZG-AUTH: hXn+rC1arvT7Lf9I/zKDqjrgIkrokD1Qxy5bIqfbp9I10BMNL35Kum+fVbT8+ijLtsxDwF9t X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo07 X-Archives-Salt: 5728e830-3ff4-420f-88d9-d20af9801959 X-Archives-Hash: aeb4b1176053e23bfe615671027eb334 --Sig_P7IC_JO/NOq.Hp6Pgk7L70W Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Petteri R=E4ty : > I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue: > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html > What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you > should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be > added to repoman. Is this iussue that grave, that we repoman needs to whine about it? What is the issue with it (apart from p.g.o, eix and friends not displaying correct information) exactly? V-Li --=20 http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ --Sig_P7IC_JO/NOq.Hp6Pgk7L70W Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGpeQ5NQqtfCuFneMRAoAJAJsFWC+3gf9Vgtg0y3RwmLsqpzT/8wCcCMQL D7e26XBQp2NIdVYehvOHFIU= =Tj2Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_P7IC_JO/NOq.Hp6Pgk7L70W-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list