Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> In my original email, I also suggested this solution, but it seems >> that nobody >> read it: >> ] Alternatively, follow the example of any ebuild that uses a dated >> ] patchset, and just have the date of the patchset in the ebuild, and >> only >> ] increment $PR singly. >> >> This solution already exists in MANY places in the tree, and should >> probably be >> preferred over the long $PR or $RC values. > > Yeah, except revisions are supposed to be for changes to ebuild code, > not upstream code. > > This gets problematic for people trying to report bugs to upstream, > because they and upstream have no idea what code they're actually running. > > Thanks, > Donnie
+1 I agree -r# is for ebuild changes not code changes. I remember a while back Portage would constantly use -r# instead of a 4th number and we worked at that to change that behavior since it was firmly established that -r# was for ebuild changes only. Not bumps in the code. -- Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
