Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems
>> that nobody
>> read it:
>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated
>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and
>> only
>> ] increment $PR singly.
>>
>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should
>> probably be
>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values.
> 
> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code,
> not upstream code.
> 
> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream,
> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

+1

I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while
back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we
worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established
that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code.

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/