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 1Jg0Gv-0004j2-1X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:20:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14EAEE02E3; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC21FE02E3 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:20:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1126C66672; Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:20:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:24:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Ciaran McCreesh References: <20080330023902.GA8787@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <20080330034811.39942523@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20080330034811.39942523@snowcone> 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="nextPart1345656.W1efA0FB7b"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200803301224.10740.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: ca8f0846-4840-4756-aa9b-d65a13ee6c4a X-Archives-Hash: 1d6d3e92869a7d6ef6d5ebb67e540c1f --nextPart1345656.W1efA0FB7b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 29 March 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: > > The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on > > leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems > > folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to > > problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo. > > 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. those arent the same thing. -r# is a Gentoo-specific revision marking. =20 _alpha/_rc/etc... are used to track upstream. if upstream uses _alpha0, th= en=20 it makes our lives easier to also use _alpha0. -r0 has no benefit and it=20 isnt inconsistent as that portion of the version is for Gentoo use only. =2Dmike --nextPart1345656.W1efA0FB7b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUAR+++qkFjO5/oN/WBAQIi5A/9FL8+FofAqFx9yHINhIVeGr8AdQqpqoIO kCsSqkanJUHfidE2efhHzjbxWXOIAQL2NOIRB6CwHBcz6CWSJ2TCi/DY8+A6kbGA 0gDbPeS3ZUcb5+hFVX0bXRJbQSlfONXWUBRHf8weYrbfOFeRxYUWvoQCUpWW/nGE 3pZqvVpzRwJHxcCD1BwEcA+lzGB7drG5RCk1MgiRWL7yjC3/Ht9izOEVknE4XAhe 4RW8ZqUHkATQnLWZem0YgDFRnZEGCaAUw22PWGiZVYf4y5oxLJ1SR6+zafS0RaQZ +X/A9lyMBIH6fhqjJKa10duoU6h659H+x9/3iQ+yJU0O7TDmCC5qRnNSHsr5d/n3 sos3Oz7dcoE478/eGR38Isdlt6pBekYygoARQEjF+gu49hTmjgGwLxDLqH5h/npW q4X4f0YLOigta3DvCB9xsh3L6GUhueE337hirJJxPv1STEuA/NALEprZiVZddbhk diH+BrtJACxsSKUdKoKR+1PhJlWECZBMrcSsxGF9e2nbesL+4iv2J5VQ9Su7UYEX BLnW7IMt2S9a9xwlZb1/WGSp+qGjqWD1PAeBkOPuPwYwsymu+svOXtGx4qRRBgNX OLFXB0ESl7YlEafJ5UOOueR7WrgBYaBAabmWNIa5ecA1wPfPPpYQfA5lEUVoeJWm RuLkc6u5HPw= =PpOc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1345656.W1efA0FB7b-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list