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 1HgS8B-00012Q-VD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:01:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3OKxpUD029522; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:59:51 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 l3OKuYKI024773 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:56:34 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7BE1118087 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <462E6F01.8000507@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:56:33 -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> <19541.166.70.55.210.1177442155.squirrel@wonkabar.org> <200704242154.20811.kugelfang@gentoo.org> <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <462E6CC4.5000408@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5559512f-6400-474f-963e-131cb718c3d4 X-Archives-Hash: 3abeae8f82f25b88f9e306901b197355 Jurek Bartuszek wrote: >> 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 released (very outdated) and we're waiting for foo-0.1_rc3.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 > This was one of the very valid use cases proposed and is definitely a situation where robbat2's suggestion will not work. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list