Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:12:37 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> What this email is about is the inconsistancy allowed on disk and the 
> fact explicitly leaving -r0 out of on disk name thus far seems to be 
> an unofficial gentoo-x86 standard.

Which means it's not something to be specified in PMS. Devmanual,
possibly, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. (We don't
specify that you should use tabs for indenting in ebuilds in PMS
either.)

> > Uniquely indentifying an ebuild is an issue regardless of whether or
> > not -r0 is allowed. See PMS section 2.4.
> 
> Stating that each cpv in a repo must be unique ignores that there are 
> multiple ways to specify certain cpv's due to implicit 0 (both suffix 
> and rev).  Frankly it's pretty stupid to state "it must be unique" 
> while allowing multiple ways for people to screw up and violate that 
> constraint.
> 
> Intentionally allowing gotchas is dumb behaviour- removal of the 
> gotcha is the intention here.

PMS is going with the tree here. There have always been equivalent but
not equal ways of specifying versions, and people use them. You don't
want to start breaking people who use >=..._alpha0 when the version in
the tree uses plain _alpha, for example. Package managers have to deal
with this kind of thing, and it's not one of those areas where we can
change reality with little or no impact.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]