Jurek Bartuszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:08:49 +0200:
>> Existing _rcX cases can be handled like this: >> >> _rc2-rYYYYMMDD >> >> Portage will update from _rc2 to a version with revision part > 0. > > However, _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1 would *not* be valid anymore, and I think > it's quite easy to imagine when this additional -r1 would be neccessary. Well, since -rX is revision number, what was proposed is in effect using a dated revision number, so instead of _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-r1, it would be a new -rYYYYMMDD. The additional data that the second one is simply a revision of the first would of course be lost. OTOH, what happens then when another snapshot is taken but not yet stabilized, and say a security revision of the first snapshot is required. Then we have two different -r<date> snapshot sequences interleaving. So then to cure that we end up with this: _rc2-rYYYYMMDDrr, where rr being two digits taking the place of the second revision sequence ( the -rX in _rc2-rYYYYMMDD-rX) in the example above. Human parsing of that long a string of digits becomes increasingly difficult, unfortunately, but it should work. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
