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 1Jfnan-00028R-CH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:48:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7B57E055D; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com (hu-out-0506.google.com [72.14.214.235]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797F1E055D for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 23so3122650huc.1 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.15.2 with SMTP id s2mr1071532ugi.52.1206845298451; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowcone ( [213.121.151.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s7sm3375668uge.58.2008.03.29.19.48.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:48:11 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Message-ID: <20080330034811.39942523@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; boundary="Sig_//3jjfoG4wey=z7VSDIlFyHX"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 2e2383f4-89e3-4f5b-8ca7-cae1735dd9aa X-Archives-Hash: 8a44a89e40628bf161188c7743b03c7d --Sig_//3jjfoG4wey=z7VSDIlFyHX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:39:02 -0700 Brian Harring wrote: > 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. Uniquely indentifying an ebuild is an issue regardless of whether or not -r0 is allowed. See PMS section 2.4. Even ignoring the unique identifiers, banning explicit -r0 globally is inconsistent anyway. We already allow and use _alpha and _alpha0 (which mean the same thing) and so on. You'd also be forcing special-casing of eclasses that would otherwise just use PVR in dep strings. Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs 'fixed' via specification next time... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_//3jjfoG4wey=z7VSDIlFyHX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH7v9u96zL6DUtXhERAqWMAKCf6IxeUo3nAms3q3UXdgJaGiMI/gCfQ/Ns Xcry8zBNJKd9KXOO2JK2rRY= =FfqW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_//3jjfoG4wey=z7VSDIlFyHX-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list