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 1HgRxR-00027u-49 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:49:53 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OKn5J0022275; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:49:05 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3OKlECp020026 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:47:14 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.3] (koxta.net [80.55.250.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF2B65254 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:47:00 +0200 From: Jurek Bartuszek User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070420) 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> <19541.166.70.55.210.1177442155.squirrel@wonkabar.org> <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7ca33c7a-95ba-410b-b327-dae785e120d4 X-Archives-Hash: 984323c8549f331cf8ac2ae251e19ba4 > Only a short response, as I'm a bit in a hurry right now. From > #gentoo-council earlier: > > 18:25 <@robbat2> make him covert it to "_rc%04d%04d%02d%02d",$RC,$YEAR, > $MONTH,$DAY Let me see if I have this straight: suppose we have package foo-0.1_rc2 released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3. Then example of something between those two would be foo-0.1_rc000220070313? Would that force portage to update to this version? Wouldn't that prevent portage from enforcing update to _rc3 when it's delivered? Of course I might be wrong and if this is the case then excuse me for the whole fuss ;) Best regards, Jurek -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list