Le vendredi 04 novembre 2016 à 10:16 +0100, Ulrich Mueller a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > > > > On 11/03/2016 05:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > == Policy changes? == > > > I think that the following new policies could make sense: > > > > > > 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999: > > > > > You likely mean "no higher than 9999", longer than would give large > > values > > The wording would be similar to "no longer than 4 digits". > > > > > > > > > 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable, > > > 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date. > > > > > Given revision in most cases is incremental (except for some -r100, > > -r200) cases, some structure here is likely good. I take it we're > > talking about devmanual changes in this case for policy? > > Yes, it would be purely devmanual/tree policy. PMS will still mandate > that the package manager can handle arbitrary long versions. > > Looks like using multiples of 100 is best practice if there is > the same PV in different slots. Not sure if we should codify that > somewhere. (If nobody contradicts, this message could be used as > future policy reference, though. :)
There was much contradiction when this was "discovered" being used in webkit-gtk ebuilds back when slot 3 was added. However, I don't remember anyone reaching a solution that would be practical keeping only one cat/pn. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <e...@gentoo.org>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
