Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86

["Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction
> against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place
> *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution.
>
> Actually, nevermind.  I digress.  You're right.  The Council screwed up.
> Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this
> crap.

Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is
near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really
fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining
packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is
gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of
sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way  (unlike all
the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and
elsewhere in this debate).

It's not like that the maintainers would use such stuff because 'oh
it's so cooool to have multiple version suffixes, I must commit at
least one such ebuild'. What's exactly your 'sane version
specification'  that you ask the maintainers of such ebuilds to move
them to 'as soon as possible'? And why's moving them ASAP exactly
needed?

--
Jakub Moc
Email: jakub.moc@gmail.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list