From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J1kO6-0005zQ-MV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:17:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lBAFGnhu019631; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:49 GMT Received: from mail.goodpoint.de (tori.goodpoint.de [85.10.203.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBAFErb5017200 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:14:53 GMT Received: from joel.lan (i59F73B2C.versanet.de [89.247.59.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.goodpoint.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED956108952; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:14:52 +0100 (CET) From: Robert Buchholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:14:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: "Nirbheek Chauhan" References: <200712091701.50364.peper@gentoo.org> <200712101359.23196.rbu@gentoo.org> <8b4c83ad0712100624v5fbe6cc6q7ea1b29f44d14326@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8b4c83ad0712100624v5fbe6cc6q7ea1b29f44d14326@mail.gmail.com> 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="nextPart4853934.TGHgknI0a9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200712101614.50048.rbu@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 0fbe0a32-0cf9-44f5-a216-205508ea70bb X-Archives-Hash: e33bae6e50317da3d8ef8066fc2d92da --nextPart4853934.TGHgknI0a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz wrote: > > 1) You cannot define a total order on those names: > > Is > > maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE > > < > > maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE > > ? > > Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be > installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between > branches since they all have different features. That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.=20 Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a=20 solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an=20 ordered list. > > 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you > > installed: sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 > > > > and > > sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4 > > > > comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of > > ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature. > > Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been > merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is > continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number > at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not=20 fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature=20 will be merged at the time one version is branched. Regards, Robert --nextPart4853934.TGHgknI0a9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQBHXVfqyZx3L/ph1soRArvuAKDSeztSXmTqBgcuhRI4hxF8we9mfwCVGlm5 0cWxsktbJ1bdwRM9qEQg9g== =/bHZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4853934.TGHgknI0a9-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list