hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller:
>>
>> I wonder if it wouldn't be saner to leave our revision syntax
>> untouched.
As already mentioned, -r1.1 is only one of several possible ways
how to achieve the same aim; I am not speaking in favour for a
particular method.
The -r1.1 method has the advantage of being simple and transparent
to the user and developer. Other approaches have other advantages:
>> Instead, one could introduce a variable INSTALL_VERSION that would
(It would have to be a variable stored in the metadata/ cache
and thus also would only work with a new API, but these are only
technical details.)
>> default to ${PVR} but could be set to the version of a previous ebuild
>> instead. The PM could compare it against INSTALL_VERSION in the VDB
>> and skip build and installation if versions match.
It should be a list and have empty default (*never* including the
version itself), but these are also technical details.
This solution would have the advantage that you could specify
*full* versions and thus have even more fine-grained control when
recompilations are necessary. One could also allow specify version
ranges, slots, overlays, etc., perhaps even make the behaviour
dependent of USE-flags, as you already mentioned, all
similarl to current DEPEND syntax.
The disadvantage is that it is slightly more work than -r1.1,
less transparent, and easily overlooked to remove for a version bump,
causing issues like these:
> It will probably also cause confusion for comaintainers and
> collaborators, especially when INSTALL_VERSION points to a version that
> has already been removed.
