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 1K6OIm-0001f8-Ky for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:15:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4347EE04CA; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B1AE04CA for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m34so2502338wag.10 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:15:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ynvff4/mYtQ+AAetfzMU/Py3otCxZuWCuLdJZj4iaUw=; b=Gsr2t0uFEQ6PGFyG5vx2Ut+4rnHg+UPGPpP5Z+UJsX8CVY3P8C5tAp00undgeTBAbF +X8o/E/gPuCT8Xqn3BCOCUisDSvx9zfw8i8wzbsSKpaVwOhTwO9Ax0S1TS6hVwuS+4xH JSZbMZZ2rYFOeeWZbpvlTmmdekTIAY7dbnkmw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=PAfGuug9+NpdzmFO5cZZOR1/NjGFW6ikXeDezp+ABrNI7CSlds0ZJiodYy7GgLbcdM cp5uG1OQc0NYnFomGbQjoNFbzjHyfYUSmzEOKxa8Rz9tFhb4nuyEw8su53OwLtiAUT+I Wyl/2JHRLs+CEW8MJZghBtuYX7HpJHIV5zqiE= Received: by 10.114.15.1 with SMTP id 1mr6271527wao.184.1213182936874; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seldon ( [98.210.154.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z15sm18478112pod.13.2008.06.11.04.15.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:15:35 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] extending existing EAPI semantics Message-ID: <20080611111535.GB6803@seldon.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20080611033311.GC9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611043801.1b4954d7@googlemail.com> <20080611041036.GE9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <484F53D3.1060003@pioto.org> <20080611051621.GF9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611062231.5f935274@googlemail.com> <20080611053341.GG9494@seldon.metaweb.com> <20080611063722.6092077b@googlemail.com> <484F66BF.2040002@gentoo.org> <20080611065146.21640d48@googlemail.com> 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="hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080611065146.21640d48@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Archives-Salt: e4dd8250-2a5a-43d7-9785-1183d5ebfd21 X-Archives-Hash: 4b0c99bab1cc623499b856a6f2071ab8 --hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:46AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:46:39 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:33:41 -0700 > > > Brian Harring wrote: > > >> Lay out how .006/.6 would work properly *per* eapi. As I clarified > > >> in my last email, the master would vary dependant on the eapi- > > >> which isn't valid unless you're retroactively overriding the > > >> versioning rules of an eapi. > > >=20 > > > "Must be a superset" being wrong does not mean "entirely arbitrary > > > changes are OK" is right. > >=20 > > You have actual usecases (eventually not thin air), which is your=20 > > counterproposal that works for them? >=20 > Care to rephrase that in English? I'm not proposing anything, so I'm at > a loss as to what you're going on about here. Being that you can't understand the problem you're commenting on, I'll=20 explain it for you. While you can remove _p1, or _ you cannot change the=20 ordering of an existing version component. Simple example you should=20 grok, changing of 1_p1 such that it's <1.0 is not valid. As I've indicated repeatedly in this thread, and y'all have missed,=20 you cannot change the semantics of the ordering. Sure, you could remove a version component from usage- that said, you cannot change=20 it's ordering. Further, you cannot change the ordering of an existing version- if=20 you can't understand why shifting 0.006 to equivalent to 0.6, then=20 frankly, this discussion need not continue. Cheers. ~harring --hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIT7PXsiLx3HvNzgcRAhl4AJ9DX9vTvSM+SjhE/dHllnqrT4gW0QCdG20g 6xzXGXaqygYgUsuxEblienk= =g/br -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list