Doug Goldstein wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> Robin H. Johnson wrote: >>> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems >>> that nobody >>> read it: >>> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated >>> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and >>> only >>> ] increment $PR singly. >>> >>> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should >>> probably be >>> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values. >> Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code, >> not upstream code. >> >> This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream, >> because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running. >> >> Thanks, >> Donnie > > +1 > > I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while > back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we > worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established > that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code. >
Yeah stubbs loved that -rX :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
