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 numbe
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 post
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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 act
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
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, no
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.
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
-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 netbean
-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
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 _al
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 develo
-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 _a
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 provide
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
>
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/in
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 wi
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
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 you
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 ma
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 anywher
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
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
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
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
> feed
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
-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 e
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 _pre or
> whatever fits, but exte
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 _pre or whatever fits, but
> extending our naming s
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 _pre or whatever fits, but
extending our naming scheme is unneeded and pointless.
Carsten
pgpcLcObgCmuK.pgp
De
34 matches
Mail list logo
