El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > 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. >
And what problems is that causing for you?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
