On Friday 13 June 2008 03:20:23 Brian Harring wrote: > 1) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171291 > metadata/cache (hence labeled flat_list cache format) mtime > requirements.
The current spec attempts to handle things as well as possible on the package manager side. If you'd like it to be restricted more, then please provide precise details along with reasoning. > 2) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196561; changing (within > eapi0) the behaviour of ~ operator. Currently, portage ignores any > revision for ~, pkgcore gives the finger if you try combining ~ with a > revision (it's not a valid atom), paludis follows the PMS rules; As the bug says, there has been at least one ebuild in the past that appeared to expect the PMS behaviour, but it's gone now. We can change the spec to match portage, but we'd like a repoman check to make sure people don't start doing it again. > 3) good 'ole mr -r0 and the issues it triggers, > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215403 > initial dev thread, > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_de84ebd5116546518879e266bf60f32b. >xml relevant flaws ignoring this issue induces: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f98bab69d67bd4132917be0eb04e8f3e. >xml > > Spawned by a rather odd commit from rbrown flushing out a user visible > breakage for pkgcore users, it also flushed out PM incompatibilities > in handling of PVR/PR; specifically since -r0 has *never* been used in > ebuild names, all ebuilds have been written assuming PVR lacks -r0. > What was the end result of this rather obnoxious (ebuild dev viewable) > variance? I'm not quite sure exactly what you're requesting here... to ban -r0 entirely? I still don't see the point in doing that in the spec - tree policy, fine, but package managers have to deal with similar issues anyway in other parts of the version syntax. If you want the description of PVR changed, then please file a new bug giving details, as Ciaran already asked. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
