From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HgRT1-0004bR-D4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:18:27 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OKGiOx023277; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:16:44 GMT Received: from nameserver1.mcve.com (nameserver1.mcve.com [216.155.111.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OKEdMl020928 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:14:40 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B161118087 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <462E652E.80909@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:14:38 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86 References: <200704242111.44663.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E5796.8080707@gentoo.org> <20070424203751.0eae1394@maya> <462E5F58.3080402@gentoo.org> <20070424195421.GB4929@ferdyx.org> In-Reply-To: <20070424195421.GB4929@ferdyx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7a80ea48-4464-4b5c-ad36-8ac675dceebb X-Archives-Hash: 72864c7f6b7a71cafba49765b3437258 Fernando J. Pereda wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> Stephen Bennett wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:16:38 -0400 >>> Doug Goldstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> So apparently as little as 1 council member can make a decision and it >>>> be binding unless appealed to the entire council at the next meeting. >>>> >>>> >>> There were three council members who happened to be around at the time, >>> and those three agreed unanimously. That seems reasonable to me for an >>> interim decision. >>> >>> >> Is it that serious of an issue that it needed to be done as such and >> could not wait for a regular council meeting? >> >> Granted I understand it's important for you paludis users since paludis >> doesn't support that. >> But I'm talking about real Gentoo users that use Portage. >> > > You mean real Gentoo users that use a Portage version that don't support > multiple suffixes, right ? > Portage doesn't support it in very old versions. The ebuilds in question are marked ~arch. Any one using ~arch with an old version of Portage would have been forced to upgrade by the point of installing those ebuilds. Also, Portage gracefully handles the situation by ignoring those ebuilds. > Oh... also... paludis supports it in trunk. Could you please stop the > conspiracy theories ? > > - ferdy > > Like I previously stated, I apologize for not running the very latest Paludis trunk. I only have actual releases available to me and those releases, including the newest one do not support it. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list