On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:42:44PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:39:26 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage > > releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as > > simple as possible without castrating it's use. > > So to you having to understand two slightly different comparison algorithms > is simpler than one? Can't agree with that, the simplest defintion for `bar` > is `see foo` if `foo` is already known. > > And as for the final letter in versions/revisions: If upstream sometimes > prefers this naming scheme, why are you so sure that other people (users) > won't prefer it? >
I don't think we need the versioning to be this complex. All we want to provide is the capability for people to have local patch levels. As far as the "=apache-2.0.58-r2.1.3" issue not working in dependencies, we can just ignore everything after the "major" revision number in dependency calculation and only compare it against "apache-2.0.58-r2". I'm going to hack up a patch with floated revision numbers, but in one sense I think my original patch is actually a little better: It will make it obvious to ebuild developers that this is a feature they shouldn't be using in gentoo-x86 tree. It would also be a little easier to drop the "-l1" in "apache-2.0.58-r2-l1" than it would be to remove certain parts of "-r#.#" from a version number. > Marius > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
