Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Monday 31 March 2008 02:29:10 Brian Harring wrote: > Going to reiterate this one more time; the proposal is simple enough; > if it's an implicit 0 via cpv parsing, it should *not* be explicitly > specified on disk. 'diffball-1.0_alpha0.ebuild' can just as easily be > specified as 'diffball-1.0_

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:29:10 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Going to reiterate this one more time; the proposal is simple enough; > if it's an implicit 0 via cpv parsing, it should *not* be explicitly > specified on disk. 'diffball-1.0_alpha0.ebuild' can just as easily > be spe

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:40:42 +0200 Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > > 'fixed' via specification next time... > > maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are > failing me, but i find the above

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

On 31/03/2008, Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anders Ossowicki wrote: > > On 31/03/2008, *Thilo Bangert* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > > > 'fixed' via specification next

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

Anders Ossowicki wrote: On 31/03/2008, *Thilo Bangert* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > 'fixed' via specification next time... maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities

Re: OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

On 31/03/2008, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > > 'fixed' via specification next time... > > maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are > failing me, but i find the above sentence highly offen

OT: offensive (Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename)

> Please think things through before asking to have pkgcore's bugs > 'fixed' via specification next time... maybe my english language skills or social interaction qualities are failing me, but i find the above sentence highly offensive. am i too thin skinned for gentoo-dev? signature.asc Desc

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:06:02AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:02:16 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But the PV does. > > > > PV varying first of all, isn't incredibly grand from where I'm > > sitting- yet more any versionator style code has to ac

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:02:16 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But the PV does. > > PV varying first of all, isn't incredibly grand from where I'm > sitting- yet more any versionator style code has to account for. > Second, so what? We're talking about 15 ebuilds here. It's n

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:46:33AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:40:46 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i dont particularly care about -r0, i'm just stating that banning > > > _alpha0/etc... is not acceptable. > > > > Lay out your reasons please; the

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:40:46 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i dont particularly care about -r0, i'm just stating that banning > > _alpha0/etc... is not acceptable. > > Lay out your reasons please; the meaning doesn't differ (same version > due to implicit 0 after all) But th

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 02:59:39PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 30 March 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > those arent the same thing. -r# is a Gentoo-specific revision > > > marking. _alpha/_rc/etc... are used to track upstream. if upstr

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sunday 30 March 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > those arent the same thing. -r# is a Gentoo-specific revision > > marking. _alpha/_rc/etc... are used to track upstream. if upstream > > uses _alpha0, then it makes our lives easier to also use _alpha0

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:39:46 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm unaware of any suffix *currently* that has some long time usage that > is used by a mere .06% of the tree. LZMA likely would apply, but > that also was introduced rather recent so isn't exactly > representative. 7z

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:24:10 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > those arent the same thing. -r# is a Gentoo-specific revision > marking. _alpha/_rc/etc... are used to track upstream. if upstream > uses _alpha0, then it makes our lives easier to also use _alpha0. > -r0 has no benefi

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Saturday 29 March 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on > > leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems > > folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 05:40:44AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:16:51 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Contrasting tabs vs spaces is a whole other matter. One of the > > things you attempted to do in splitting PMS was to force certain > > technical twe

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:16:51 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Contrasting tabs vs spaces is a whole other matter. One of the > things you attempted to do in splitting PMS was to force certain > technical tweaks through because frankly, they made sense (or you > were stubborn, and i

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 04:20:57AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:12:37 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What this email is about is the inconsistancy allowed on disk and the > > fact explicitly leaving -r0 out of on disk name thus far seems to be > > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:12:37 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What this email is about is the inconsistancy allowed on disk and the > fact explicitly leaving -r0 out of on disk name thus far seems to be > an unofficial gentoo-x86 standard. Which means it's not something to be spe

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

Reordering the email a bit... On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:48:11AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:39:02 -0700 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on > > leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- lo

Re: [gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:39:02 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on > leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems > folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to > problems with

[gentoo-dev] explicit -r0 in ebuild filename

Recently dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 (explicit -r0 in ebuild name) was commited to mainline gentoo-x86; as far as I know, this is in conflict w/ long term practice of not explicitly specifying -r0 in the ebuild name due to the implicit -r0 addition in comparison/atom matching. At this point, said