Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-19 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:46:22 +0100 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing we could do would be to separate hierarchy from version naming. This is where upstream version numbers fail to have a decent order (like your example where later versions have lower version numbers).

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:24:33PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 March 2007, Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) wrote: Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 of netbeans 6.0 with

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide all the different intermediate development sort of releases in our tree? William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: After reviewing

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 01:08 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: Rather then analyze the proposed solution, I'd like to question the problem itself. Do we really want to provide all the different intermediate development sort of releases in our tree? That came up in the link I provided in

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life cycle. In netbeans case it is _prealpha and definitely not stable patched release. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing, qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to be caught before actual releases, during

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Jakub Moc
Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) napsal(a): According to http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life cycle. In netbeans case it is _prealpha and definitely not stable patched release. So _alpha

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hierarchy would be the following snapshot - dev - build - alpha - beta And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jakub Moc napsal(a): Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) napsal(a): According to http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules it seems to me the versioning is focused on package stability life cycle. In netbeans case

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:46:22 +0100 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing we could do would be to separate hierarchy from version naming. That was one of Zynot's goals. You might want to investigate how they ended up solving it. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though. The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, not for the ones provided by us.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Petteri Räty
Carsten Lohrke kirjoitti: On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though. The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, not

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Carsten Lohrke
This is a valid argument for a single postfix with a lower order than alpha, but not a reason to add everything what's out there. I don't see the need to match upstream's versioning bit by bit. Honestly said I've never understood why our order is alpha, beta, pre and not pre, alpha, beta, which

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing, qa, feedback. I think it's a very good thing, since it allows things to be caught before actual

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Carsten Lohrke
Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of pre-release. Which they won't find. We have stable, testing and masked ebuilds.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Jakub Moc
Carsten Lohrke napsal(a): The additional postfix is reserved exclusively for user local ebuilds, not for the ones provided by us. Such as media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.14_rc2_p3234 ? :) Anyway, if you have better ideas, move them to Bug 166522; multiple suffixes are definitely needed, just

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:06:07 +0200 Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carsten Lohrke kirjoitti: On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Petteri Räty wrote: It's already used by alsa-driver. Then either me or the one doing so missed something on the discussion, why it was requested in the first place. Something to clarify in our ebuild policy. Carsten pgpUkMku2iZHo.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 02:20 -0700, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: There is a bit of contradiction in what you said there. Either the package is well tested, and should go into the tree, first with ~arch keywords, and then eventually with arch keywords, or it is experimental, and as such has

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 14:13 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Samstag, 17. März 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: IMHO I think it should be up to the package maintainer how close they want to follow upstream. With regard to development, progress, testing, qa, feedback. I think it's a very

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-17 Thread Marius Mauch
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:01:45 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Samstag, 17. März 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Actually stuff like cat/pkg-1.2_alpha3_pre4 is valid now and honored by portage; dunno how does that fit the netbeans upstream scheme, though. The additional postfix is

[gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
After reviewing http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#file-naming-rules I still seem to be having to finagle version names for some packages. At the moment it would be nice if we also had the following suffixes available _dev Apache upstream, specifically

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Carsten Lohrke
There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _predatecode or whatever fits, but extending our naming scheme is unneeded and pointless. Carsten

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:11 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _predatecode or whatever fits, but extending our

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be irritating to the user. Simply use _predatecode or whatever fits, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 of netbeans 6.0 with many new features that make sense to use the milestone releases. I have to name the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 23:46 +, Stephen Bennett wrote: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:11:43 +0100 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:51 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Understandable for sure. Thus not really putting any sort of time frame on implementation. Maybe EAPI=1 or beyond. Up to others that would implement it. Just was tossing it out there, providing some feedback.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Neal McConachie
William L. Thomson Jr. said the following: Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of pre-release. Which they won't find.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of pre-release. Which they

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 16 March 2007, Miroslav Šulc (fordfrog) wrote: Just a note to this. I'm co-maintainer of netbeans ebuild. Netbeans does milestone releases. These are pretty stable and usable since milestone 7 of netbeans 6.0 with many new features that make sense to use the milestone releases. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hierarchy would be the following snapshot - dev - build - alpha - beta And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself _snapshot is something universal so it doesn't really fit anywhere in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 21:23 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 16 March 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since it's not a pre-release. A user may go

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 03:11 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hierarchy would be the following snapshot - dev - build - alpha - beta And that's where the problems start. As you said yourself _snapshot is

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC Package name additions

2007-03-16 Thread Alec Warner
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 03:11 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:25:17 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hierarchy would be the following snapshot - dev - build - alpha - beta And that's where the problems start. As you