On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 09:22:04AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote:
> , 21. ?? 2006 01:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :
> [...]
> > I'm writing to ask for your opinion on a change to sys-apps/portage that
> > would allow users to maintain local revisions of ebu
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 05:26:00PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:05:22PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > In designing an enterprise infrastructure around Gentoo at my place of
> > employment, I have discovered a feature that would improve Gentoo's
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:27:24PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Joel Martin wrote:
> >Instead of -rY-localX, I do -rX0Y the following in my local overlays.
> >This gets the same effect and maintains both version numbers. And if
> >you are worried about a revision number exceeding 99, then just do
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:34:08PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:51:19 +0000 Philip Walls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | This argument here can also be applied to the -r#.# solution you
> | mentioned, so I think the decision between -r#.# and -local# is
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 09:42:44PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:39:26 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -r* is an ebuild convention; upstream (exemption of older daft portage
> > releases) doesn't use it, as such we define it; should define it as
> > s
