From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B84138A2F for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 58003E0D37; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29206E0C7E for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.195] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 318913405C5 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53CFB562.6030409@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:15:14 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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: don't rely on dynamic deps References: <53CD6BED.10603@gentoo.org> <21454.52259.945880.262793@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <3332254.OsrSYpEynq@kailua> In-Reply-To: <3332254.OsrSYpEynq@kailua> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2107cc45-a72f-42f8-b833-db4bd1b7411b X-Archives-Hash: d2ef5bbecf490b85c9b057c5c3d16163 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 04:51 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag 22 Juli 2014, 22:40:03 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote: >>> PF has to be filled correctly, of course: The versions foo-1 >>> and foo-1-r0 are identical according to PMS and should thus >>> lead to the same $PF. >> >> This is not so. These versions are equal in comparision, so they >> cannot be in the tree at the same time. However, PF will be >> different for them. > > Well we'd need a new EAPI for this anyway. So we might as well > redefine -r0 there. > I still don't follow why we need new EAPI for this, as presented. What we are talking about here is optional PM behaviour only, and a convention that developers will need to adopt. It doesn't much matter if a PM doesn't implement minor-revision-vdbonly-merging because that PM would just do a full re-emerge same as any other revbump. The only need for EAPI change that I can see is to allow non-integer revision values, but that wasn't on mva's list of changes from what I remember. Am I missing something else, here? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlPPtWIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCjBQD+K0aQW3lJqVUJTo1nO9nnFlsY NfrgaIuu6eescdN6FDkBALwizKGBI4I0iSmj2ywis/4OTNsvFBQm9sxywXq7HFz1 =3Ajb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----