Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-28 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/28 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: >> 2009/5/28 Ulrich Mueller : On Thu, 28 May 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: > ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild > ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-28 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Piotr Jaroszyński wrote: > 2009/5/28 Ulrich Mueller : >>> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild >>> you probably mean: >>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/f

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-28 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/28 Ulrich Mueller : >> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: > >>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild >>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild > >> you probably mean: >> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a.live.ebuild > > No, I mean what I had written, namely to use a

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-28 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: >> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild >> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild > you probably mean: > ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a.live.ebuild No, I mean what I had written, namely to use an underscore as separator, i.e., "_li

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-28 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Dienstag, den 19.05.2009, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: > > On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:59:36 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> AFAICS, there _is_ an ambiguity. You can have the following two > >> ebuilds in the tree, simultaneously: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-19 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild >${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild > > With our current versioning scheme the rule is very simple: ${P} is > split into ${PN} and ${PV} at the last hyphen. This can be done i

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-19 Thread Joe Peterson
Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Hyphens within PV are a Bad Thing, and we should really think about > replacing the separator for "scm" by something else, like a period or > an underscore. For example, the following two would be unique: > > ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild > ${PORTDIR}/a

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-19 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:59:36 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> AFAICS, there _is_ an ambiguity. You can have the following two >> ebuilds in the tree, simultaneously: >>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a-scm.ebuild >>${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:59:36 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > AFAICS, there _is_ an ambiguity. There's no ambiguity. It means what we define it to mean. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed. > You mean like -r0? The revision is not part of PV. And it's easily split off, since the string "-r" cannot occur elsewhere in the package version. > It's easily solved by a careful definition, in

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV (was: GLEP 55 updated)

2009-05-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:43 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed. You mean like -r0? It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any case, just the same way that there's already a careful definition full of weaselling out to allow other abuses... There's

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV (was: GLEP 55 updated)

2009-05-17 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> In fact, with GLEP 54 we have the problem already now. >> P=foo-1a-scm could mean both of the following: >> >> PN=foo PV=1a-scm >> PN=foo-1a PV=scm > We've had that problem ever since -100dpi things had to be made legal, But so far you c