From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M64nb-0002Xw-9Q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:30:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3270E03A4; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDCBE03A4 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [67.40.138.82] (crater.wildlava.net [67.40.138.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC72652C5 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 15:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4A117F0B.5000602@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:30:19 -0600 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090512) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 55 updated References: <7c612fc60905170920k22189731i2540514e24e60959@mail.gmail.com> <18960.18295.65849.57779@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4A104BCE.7000001@gentoo.org> <4A107F05.7020001@gentoo.org> <20090517222016.3164b564@snowmobile> <4A1089E6.7070909@gentoo.org> <12688336.dTPDegVI1m@news.friendly-coders.info> <20090518161646.2c29b637@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090518161646.2c29b637@snowcone> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 65e8ff83-067b-4762-a11c-d1c876b25c1c X-Archives-Hash: 67260b3e3131f82ea45dbe7e031d7c9f Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100 > Steven J Long wrote: >> I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this >> oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at >> least 5 years. > > Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator? > Anything that finally lets us kill that off has to be good... I have to disagree. As Steve said, the fact that Gentoo has a strict way to specify versions brings clarity and uniformity to our tree, regardless of the myriad upstream conventions. I do not think that allowing all of those upstream conventions in our filenames is a benefit. It is actually quite ugly and would make the tree harder to comprehend. Someone looking at various packages in our tree would need to learn each specific upstream format in order to make sense of the filename content. The current consistency in versions in the tree is a great feature, IMHO. Using versionator and $MY_PV is, as I see it, a translation method. It gives us the best of both worlds: the ability to deal with upstream versions and a consistent Gentoo version format. These mechanisms could certainly be improved upon, of course, and handling some cases is currently difficult, as is handing the case in which upstream's tarball file does not contain the version, but these are fixable issues. -Joe