On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) You cannot define a total order on those names: > > Is > > maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE > > < > > maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE > > ? > > Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be > installed at a time? There can be no concept of "upgrading" between > branches since they all have different features.
That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual blocks.
Even if that would work and it block upgrades, it is still not a
solution in terms of how to display a list of ebuilds in one tree in an
ordered list.
> > 2) It will break updating from the feature branch, once you
> > installed: sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
> >
> > and
> > sys-devel/gcc-4.2.4
> >
> > comes out, it'll update to that, regardless of the inclusion of
> > ${BRANCHNAME}'s feature.
>
> Well, first off, most cases will assume that the branch has been
> merged by 4.2.4. Secondly, if the branch has not been merged, and is
> continuing independent of the releases, why give it a version number
> at all? Just call it sys-devel/gcc-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1
You are right. But this just shows that named feature branches do not
fit the context of this GLEP, as you usually cannot know when a feature
will be merged at the time one version is branched.
Regards,
Robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
