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 1Hga7E-0003vP-3X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:32:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3P5Vh8h008795; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:31:43 GMT Received: from spunkymail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (sd-green-bigip-81.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.81]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3P5ToGC006468 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:29:50 GMT Received: from [192.168.2.26] (c-67-180-39-52.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.39.52]) by spunkymail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2879C5BEB2 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <462EE75E.1000401@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:30:06 -0700 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070411) 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> <20070424210306.GP7810@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <462E7953.9070403@gentoo.org> <462ED9CF.90909@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <462ED9CF.90909@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 40229f6d-f346-4699-8062-0e02702e229f X-Archives-Hash: 9c2756453b2d59df7566e248d22d914a Doug Goldstein wrote: > 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. > Yeah stubbs loved that -rX :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list