� wrote: >> Specification >> ============= >> >> ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other >> valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just >> like >> revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.: >> >> * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm`` >> * ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha-scm`` >> * ``cat/pkg-1.0-scm-r3`` >> * ``cat/pkg-1-scm`` >> * ``cat/pkg-1-scm-r2`` >> * ``cat/pkg-scm`` >> >> These package atoms are sorted in ascending order (see `Version >> Comparison`_). > > What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? > From the logical POV, scm is a special decorator saying "this is a > special tarball that can change in time and we don't know its version > when parsing ebuild, we'd have to ask the repository". Surely I can > think of uses for *revision* specification (as in "revision of the > ebuild"), but why to support full version for scm packages?
for example:
sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm-r1 would be GCC 4.2 branch prerelease
with the 20071127 patchset and one ebuild revision.
or more generally, why go through the /extra/ trouble of /not/ allowing
normal version specifiers?
--
looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees
this latitude weakens my knees
EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
