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 4.54) id 1FOSQv-0004dC-Re for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:37:26 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2T4bFaD032330; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:37:15 GMT Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [63.240.77.84]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2T4bEqn006367 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:37:15 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown[69.140.185.48]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <2006032904371201400c28oce>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:37:12 +0000 Message-ID: <442A0EFB.1050500@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:37:15 -0500 From: Kumba User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-kernel@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-kernel@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-kernel@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-kernel] [ANNOUNCE] genpatches-2.6.16-2 release References: <20060328131922.4D385877627@zog.reactivated.net> <20060328132657.GE17806@getafix.willow.local> <442968CD.2030208@gentoo.org> <20060328170923.GA21022@osgiliath.brixandersen.dk> In-Reply-To: <20060328170923.GA21022@osgiliath.brixandersen.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c3580452-7120-47bd-9d89-88cfd23aa1cd X-Archives-Hash: 91bfe2aa8f72a88bd8da11219a4f92b2 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: >> John Mylchreest wrote: >>> Since were bunlding these whole now, should we just start naming the >>> ebuilds correctly instead? >> I don't think so. 2 -stable releases in the 2.6.15 cycle didn't have any >> immediate corresponding gentoo-sources bump since the patches were >> already included. The fact that we include patches alongside -stable >> means that using their notation isn't entirely accurate in our situation. > > Both naming schemes have their advantages, but I see more > disadvantages with using the 2.6.x.y naming scheme in gentoo-sources > than I see advantages (primarily the reason Daniel stated above). > > I suggest we keep the current naming scheme for gentoo-sources, as it > seems most correct. > > Regards, > Brix fwiw, I've got mips-sources modified to follow the upstream kernel.org notation of 2.6.x.y (even though our primary upstream, linux-mips.org, doesn't utilize this notation at all). There's logic in the ebuild that can switch between using -rc, point releases (the .y ones) and standard versions, and it modifies the logic to fetch the appropriate patch(es) from upstream to save on what we need to upload to the gentoo mirrors. Been following this since ~2.6.12, and we haven't had any issues with the versioning in portage or reported from users. mips-headers even uses it now. --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-kernel@gentoo.org mailing list