Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
> Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
>>> upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
>>> is "ntfs-3g". I tried to rename the package however, Portage does
>>> not let me since it is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed
>>> me it's invalid with PMS as well.
>>>
>>> The version I was trying to add is ntfs-3g-1.516. Logically Portage
>>> and PMS should only consider any data after the LAST - as the
>>> version information.
>>>
>> Would this cause problems anywhere if we had the following?
>>
>> sys-fs/ntfs/ntfs-3g.ebuild
>> and
>> sys-fs/ntfs-3g/ntfs-3g-1.516.ebuild
>>
>
> Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
> don't know unless you actually check the tree.
>
> Marius
>
>
I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of
an atom.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
