On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100 > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200 > > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > > > The problem is that there's no way of knowing that -r300 is not "a > > > newer version" than -r200 > > > > It is a newer version. That's why it has a newer revision. > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being > used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200. Did you look at SONAME? > > > and that the jruby implementation is not "a > > > newer version" than the ruby 1.8 implementation. > > > > And that's another thing which is ugly and should be replaced by > > something sane rather than worked around. > > I agree. But until that happens, which probably isn't going to be > anytime soon, we need to know where something weird is happening, and > that's what this proposal provides. Yes, let's introduce some random 'funky' word for a single ebuild. Or.. since it's just a single package, maybe you would just add an ignore list to paludis. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
