From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JfnTK-0001oC-9d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6309AE054F; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C305E054F for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AF166E5A for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.571, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQfLHgp7CCWj for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.191]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197C966C1C for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so496953rvb.24 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:40:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=4gzljD076N2RPXHEdawOd5hpmaJOmzxamg+B1cRVJO0=; b=D7k/GAYWpQh42dNGarioNxmStgnnsypqmgxkrUewN+hOkSKGP4KLHimzg25tF2Lv6d52wBBYS7O4sbpeUJsPPKA5nnfB030pERXMd3KCsj4+cBSF8b6rpozpZzsQ8w3W3lRF9+v27md1cGOk6OGpH4stWKq5ACK8sZZKGQpykyI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; b=KW/2+qjSWD7n0THJ4QrN0E9g7BrcMEQMaK+AJfEcFFIwYqNc5JNe9HfVGLgQmwkjxGTW69DXc4CtxlCZCBNTI9QWa4Kv5NXiO2IJ1OjUr+k26zhJTtZfsJ6stz7gGszaazLaFsxCQpa3CXUjxCn5m3EIJVduc2OmgbiJGFeYwCo= Received: by 10.140.88.11 with SMTP id l11mr2485033rvb.156.1206844828514; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seldon ( [71.204.151.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c20sm5705120rvf.33.2008.03.29.19.40.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:39:02 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Message-ID: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: 0723d838-5aee-44f5-94a3-518ca627fd7a X-Archives-Hash: de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b --y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Recently dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 (explicit -r0 in ebuild name) was=20 commited to mainline gentoo-x86; as far as I know, this is in conflict=20 w/ long term practice of not explicitly specifying -r0 in the ebuild=20 name due to the implicit -r0 addition in comparison/atom matching. At this point, said ebuild is the only one in the tree with an=20 explicit -r0 also, so I'm advocating having the -r0 dropped. The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on=20 leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems=20 folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to=20 problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo. Expanding on that one a bit, either -r0 should be required, or it must=20 be left off- reason is simple, if you had both 1.1.0 and 1.1.0-r0 in a=20 repo, and due to dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 =3D=3D dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0 via the implicit -r0 rule, there is no defined sorting order there. =20 Literally, if both are there which version on disk the manager=20 used would be indeterminant at worst, pkg manager specific at best. I've opened a pms bug (21543) to get this corrected in docs, but=20 again, emailing to ensure there is consensus- so kindly chime in as=20 to which it should be. Personally I'm for preserving the unofficial=20 long term rule of dropping -r0 from the ebuild name itself, but=20 y'alls show, so speak up. ~harring --y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH7v1FsiLx3HvNzgcRAjC3AJ4m3EHD+dsLXqpafJk3ROvnvGmbIgCgrwFN B9bI8yQDjFFNkgQMTWgfwl0= =dE4/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list