Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
Quoting Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED]: noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for urgent council decision. That's because your revisions only change once a year. ;-) (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Best regards, Wulf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 08:55 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote: On a general note - if you are unable to agree upon an acceptable solution, then better refrain from taking 'emergency' measures on issues where there's no emergency whatsoever. There's been a bug open for over two months and noone ever suggested that I'd be a case for urgent council decision. I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Council screwed up. Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this crap. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a solution was found... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On 4/25/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. Actually, nevermind. I digress. You're right. The Council screwed up. Feel free to give us all our 50 lashings and we'll be done with this crap. Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and elsewhere in this debate). It's not like that the maintainers would use such stuff because 'oh it's so cl to have multiple version suffixes, I must commit at least one such ebuild'. What's exactly your 'sane version specification' that you ask the maintainers of such ebuilds to move them to 'as soon as possible'? And why's moving them ASAP exactly needed? -- Jakub Moc Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand how nobody can see that the *TEMPORARY* injunction against packages using this versioning scheme was put into place *BECAUSE* nobody could agree on the solution. On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:22 Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mmm, no, what's weird is that you did it about two days after a solution was found... How is this conversation even relevant to development anymore? It sounds more policy, well questioning authority, and that is clearly meant for another ML. Can we please move on past the how did the council decide to make this decision and the why did the council make this decision? Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] for answers to those questions, after all, anyone can be on that ML so it's not like its going to be 'closed door' information. A more appropriate discussion for here would be what do we do to start working with this decision? Regards, Chrissy Fullam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [ANN] Multiple version suffixes illegal in gentoo-x86
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:40:17 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh... It for sure did sound like 'oh noes, the end of the world is near if we don't stop this immediately!!!111!'. Sorry, but I really fail to see the need to use such procedures when the only 2 remaining packages (eh, actually just one, the obsolete transcode ebuild is gone) clearly use multiple version suffixes because it makes a lot of sense to use them and they use them in a pretty sane way (unlike all the crazy _alpha_beta_rc_pre examples given on the relevant bug and elsewhere in this debate). The issue is that it's a not particularly nice package manager feature that's only needed for two packages. In general in those situations the solution is to use some kind of workaround for the small number of affected packages rather than making things even more complicated than they already are. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
