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 1K75xr-000754-Gr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:52:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4AB0E0531; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6461BE0531 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z27so54395ugc.49 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:52:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=UYH/BgY3gfZKcIvSK4P1YgV2T0YSK9rdCyRep8DKn1w=; b=XWXQXGnHhu0PGqWRPcPb8d2rthAOS2Bog2MStAw8zeqcPIGDd/sqq792fjPQKHYYU2 usfQOmqweeEWjB0j5zCgZZR06fQkj5827vg8CSLwAd6xY0jS1tsrtD0tFHwkfgxGvH1t o8HA9g6ji9Q4L2G6Rby+8/ZB133N/8GOhREzE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=UIRdOXsCGEbcymBS8ilMi8OS58kSlWD7lAKpAYuFpBMckiFmLJaHR4+DIJoncOwO91 w7/iA+rkkJwI9Ruxpdo8WWBN551EgotDOm4a1s9ZUNwtYXZE/po1c2sTIsE/iFZzZik+ F1cMz4Sn1eDRF/fv3DnFaCRgl93sdIWb5pf6w= Received: by 10.210.86.15 with SMTP id j15mr2353587ebb.53.1213350743823; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shiny-one.home ( [81.158.32.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm4312434gvf.7.2008.06.13.02.52.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:52:22 -0700 (PDT) From: David Leverton To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:52:14 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080612170943.GE9607@comet> <20080613022023.GC7943@seldon.metaweb.com> In-Reply-To: <20080613022023.GC7943@seldon.metaweb.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: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806131052.15220.levertond@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 26367d4a-a864-41a7-9495-e2c10a0504b8 X-Archives-Hash: bb452562ca8e75e080b5d5741b165029 On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote: > 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 > metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime > requirements. The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package manager side. If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide precise details along with reasoning. > 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within > eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any > revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a > revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now. We can change the spec to match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start doing it again. > 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 > initial dev thread, > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b. >xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e. >xml > > Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible > breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities > in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in > ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. > What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) > variance? I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely? I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts of the version syntax. If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving details, as Ciaran already asked. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list