On Dec 11, 2007 4:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530
> "Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a
> > branch (because you cannot define "upgrade" for branches), so make it
> >
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a
> branch (because you cannot define "upgrade" for branches), so make it
> manual.
...and this is why branches shouldn't be treated like versions. They
On Dec 11, 2007 1:51 PM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what about when there's a dependency on any of several branches?
> That gets hard to maintain if there are multiple ebuilds with similar
> dependencies.
How does it become hard to maintain? Different branch ebuilds are
still the same
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling.
> The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is < 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd
> be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing
> cvs
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling.
> The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is < 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd
> be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing
> cvs
"Nirbheek Chauhan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:14:06 +0530:
> On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That would still mean everything relies on n ebuilds with mutual
>> blocks. Even if that would work and it
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Incidentally, I suspect the gcc example with _p is confusing people. The
normal use for an -scm suffix will be as follows:
Yeah I abused the _p suffix. My bad.
The whole _p thing only comes up for those very rare (or possibly
non-existent) projects that have patchset b
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007 8:44 PM, Robert Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
� wrote:
>> Specification
>> =
>>
>> ``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other
>> valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just
>> like
>> revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.:
>>
>> * ``cat/pkg-1
