Re: [gentoo-dev] Annoying X.Org tarball naming (and how to deal with it)

2005-12-22 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 21:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'd appreciate some ideas better than what I've come up with so far to deal with the very strange X.Org release naming. When modular tarballs are part of a full X.Org release (7.0, 7.1,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Annoying X.Org tarball naming (and how to deal with it)

2005-12-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ferris McCormick wrote: | On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 21:34 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: | What does this mean for the future? All modular X ebuilds that are part | of a full release will require XORG_PV to be set. All modular X ebuilds | that aren't part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Annoying X.Org tarball naming (and how to deal with it)

2005-12-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Donnie Berkholz wrote: | I'd appreciate some ideas better than what I've come up with so far to | deal with the very strange X.Org release naming. | | When modular tarballs are part of a full X.Org release (7.0, 7.1, etc), | then they are named

[gentoo-dev] Annoying X.Org tarball naming (and how to deal with it)

2005-12-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'd appreciate some ideas better than what I've come up with so far to deal with the very strange X.Org release naming. When modular tarballs are part of a full X.Org release (7.0, 7.1, etc), then they are named PN-PV-XORG_RELEASE.tar.(gz|bz2) and S