-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/07/14 04:51 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag 22 Juli 2014, 22:40:03 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Martin Vaeth wrote: >>> PF has to be filled correctly, of course: The versions foo-1 >>> and foo-1-r0 are identical according to PMS and should thus >>> lead to the same $PF. >> >> This is not so. These versions are equal in comparision, so they >> cannot be in the tree at the same time. However, PF will be >> different for them. > > Well we'd need a new EAPI for this anyway. So we might as well > redefine -r0 there. >
I still don't follow why we need new EAPI for this, as presented. What we are talking about here is optional PM behaviour only, and a convention that developers will need to adopt. It doesn't much matter if a PM doesn't implement minor-revision-vdbonly-merging because that PM would just do a full re-emerge same as any other revbump. The only need for EAPI change that I can see is to allow non-integer revision values, but that wasn't on mva's list of changes from what I remember. Am I missing something else, here? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlPPtWIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCjBQD+K0aQW3lJqVUJTo1nO9nnFlsY NfrgaIuu6eescdN6FDkBALwizKGBI4I0iSmj2ywis/4OTNsvFBQm9sxywXq7HFz1 =3Ajb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
