On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it > with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have been made for EAPI 5. It's simple, low impact and easy to understand. Please explain for everyone's benefit how you think this proposal is in any way different to the EBUILD_PHASE_FUNC proposal, or the usex proposal, or the silent rules proposal. > If this is seriously, could you explain more how paludis behave in > this case? Looks like it treats SLOT with major number as latest > version, that is not always true and I don't understand why it should > be always true as there are cases where upstream could release newer > 3.0.x releases that are really newer than 3.1.x versions. It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3 version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2 version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a newer GCC and so on. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
