Mathy Vanvoorden posted on Tue, 15 May 2018 11:32:30 +0200 as excerpted: > 2018-05-12 14:20 GMT+02:00 Gerion Entrup <gerion.ent...@flump.de>: > > just an idea for now. But what you think about multiversion ebuilds? >> Technically this could be realized with the following line in the ebuild >> itself: >> ``` >> VERSIONS=( 3.0.11 3.0.12 3.1 ) >> ``` >> > > I like the idea of multiversion ebuilds but why would you complicate the > process by putting it in a variable? Why not just use symlinks and have the > following: > > foobar/foobar-1.x > foobar/foobar-1.1.ebuild -> foobar-1.x > foobar/foobar-1.2.ebuild -> foobar-1.x > foobar/foobar-2.x > foobar/foobar-2.1.ebuild -> foobar-2.x
AFAIK symlinks aren't allowed in the gentoo tree, with the given reason being that some users, particularly those with limited net access and thus "sneakernetting" from where they /do/ have net access, may place the tree on or transfer it via no-symlink-support FAT32 or similar, perhaps downloading it from an MS machine or the like. Of course users may use symlinks on their own copies, but they're not allowed in the official tree. Tho perhaps that can be reevaluated. But while there's more connectivity now than over a decade ago when that policy was created, I expect there's still those paying by the meg or gig for net access locally, that won't enjoy having their sneakernet sync routine disrupted. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
