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

2007-12-11 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling. The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing cvs digit

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

2007-12-11 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 11, 2007 1:51 PM, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what about when there's a dependency on any of several branches? That gets hard to maintain if there are multiple ebuilds with similar dependencies. How does it become hard to maintain? Different branch ebuilds are still the same

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

2007-12-11 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a branch (because you cannot define upgrade for branches), so make it manual. ...and this is why branches shouldn't be treated like versions. They have

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

2007-12-11 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 11, 2007 5:57 AM, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't find the argument for versioning the scm live ebuild compelling. The point wrt comparison, ie foo-1-scm is 2.0.1, doesn't seem enough; it'd be better to slot that imo, and have a slot identifier[1] in the existing cvs digit

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

2007-12-11 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Dec 11, 2007 4:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:51 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea is that no one would want to automatically upgrade to a branch (because you cannot define upgrade for branches), so make it manual.