Re: [gentoo-dev] how CVS ebuilds are managed

[Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@gentoo.org>]

Robert Thomas <rwt@cc.gatech.edu> writes:

> Instead of having a separate package for a cvs version of a package,
> why not consider the cvs version to be the latest version of a
> package, but always marked unstable? Since the cvs version of a
> package usually overwrites the existing version, the old version
> should be automagically unmerged. For example, in the case of gaim and
> gaim-cvs, if the cvs version of gaim is installed, the stable version
> should be unmerged as if it was an old version of the package. Perhaps
> there is another way to manage this.
> In the case of binary packages (like openoffice-bin), they should also
> be considered to be the same package, but still kept separate in some
> way.
> Perhaps another USE flag?
> # USE="bin" emerge openoffice
> 
> Or maybe cvs could be a new keyword:
> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="cvs" emerge gaim
> 
> Ok, I really am talking out of the wrong orifice here, and I know that
> these ideas are probably a misuse of USE flags and KEYWORDS. I would
> just like to know if something like this could work (not necessarily
> the way I've described it, perhaps a different extention to the
> version calculating routine altogether), or if there is a reason these
> packages are managed the way they are (by "these" I mean all packages
> ending in "-bin" or "-cvs").


>From a developer's standpoint, having one ebuild for both release and
CVS versions would usually clutter the ebuild substantially.  At least
I *know* this would be the case with the emacs and emacs-cvs ebuilds.

Secondly, there's no reason why a CVS ebuild should override the
release version you might already have installed.  There just happens
to be no policy (afaik) on this particular matter.  Technically, I
think its the way to go (ie. simultaneous version).  

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list