Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:14:56 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:18:26AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundr??t [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the point of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:26:21 -0800 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used): Major version branches - eg CVS cvs-1.11.x and cvs-1.12.x (those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages using the branch

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: mypkg-scm One devil's advocate question for now. Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known suffix, what will be the expected behavior when PN = 'foo-scm'? There's at least one package on Freshmeat with

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:36:04 -0800 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 08:24:27AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: mypkg-scm One devil's advocate question for now. Regardless of which suffix we pick, given that it is a well-known suffix, what will be the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: Why not just have something like sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3_p20071127-scm_b${BRANCHNAME}-r1 ? 1) You cannot define a total order on those names: Is maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE ? 2) It will break updating

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) You cannot define a total order on those names: Is maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE ? Why not have them block each other such that only one branch can be installed at a time? There can

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Robert Buchholz
On Monday, 10. December 2007, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM, Robert Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) You cannot define a total order on those names: Is maa/moo-3-scm_bONECOOLFEATURE maa/moo-3-scm_bOTHERCOOLFEATURE ? Why not have them block each other

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
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 one tree in an ordered list. The

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-10 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 11, 2007 1:14 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course this could be extended to apply only to branch ebuilds without a version number (where you know when the branch will be merged), etc. s/you know/you don't know/ -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Josh Sled
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs instead. (...not that it matters much, of course.) --

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 17:18:08 Josh Sled wrote: Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Current html version available here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related. I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Petteri Räty
Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes doesn't -- don't signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Piotr Jaroszyński
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 18:52:22 Petteri Räty wrote: Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle arbitrary version suffixes doesn't -- don't thanks, fixed. -- Best Regards, Piotr Jaroszyński -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Jan Kundrát
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-1.0_alpha0-scm`` *

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings, which seems to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800 Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100 Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix? Branches. How

Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] scm package version suffix

2007-12-09 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature. I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes one to need a