On 21/09/2015 21:45, Taahir Ahmed wrote:
>
> Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec to
> work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of
> versions into the ebuilds?
>
> Then, a version identifier would just be a unique string.
>
> An ebuild would
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:45:19 -0500
Taahir Ahmed wrote:
> Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec
> to work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of
> versions into the ebuilds?
That idea was what lead to Zynot...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.a
Instead of adding more and more layers to the Gentoo versioning spec to
work around insane upstreams, why not put the relative ordering of
versions into the ebuilds?
Then, a version identifier would just be a unique string.
An ebuild would declare which version strings it succeeds.
Then even in
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> >>So what would pkg-1.4_alpha1_p20 look like if you convert it to a form
>> >>that uses ~?
>> >
>> > You shouldn't start with old gentoo version but with whatever upstream
>> > uses. The goal is that the scheme is really upstream friendly.
>
Dnia 2015-09-20, o godz. 16:40:16
konsolebox napisał(a):
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456
> >
> > Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox
> > napisał(a):
> >>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:55 P
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456
>
> Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox
> napisał(a):
>>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Michał Górny
>>wrote:
>>> Dnia 19 września 2015 12:27:32 CEST, kons
Here's my old proposal: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526456
Dnia 19 września 2015 14:59:35 CEST, konsolebox
napisał(a):
>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Michał Górny
>wrote:
>> Dnia 19 września 2015 12:27:32 CEST, konsolebox
> napisał(a):
>>>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Michał G
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> And to save you some time reading: the rpm implementation is simpler
>> and more flexible. It's free of stupidities like hardcoded suffix
>> lists or forced component ordering. Ordering (p
Dnia 19 września 2015 09:43:14 CEST, konsolebox
napisał(a):
>On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny
>wrote:
>> Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52
>> konsolebox napisał(a):
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał Górny
>wrote:
>>> > And similarly to the current solution it's full
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52
> konsolebox napisał(a):
>
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > And similarly to the current solution it's full of silly special cases and
>> > magical rules. If you really want some
Gentoo is a distribution that incorporates heterogeneous software packages,
each of which may have their own versioning scheme.
We kinda have to treat the upstream version as an opaque blob because of
this.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think it's ok to screw with
upstream supplied vers
On 19 September 2015 at 10:09, konsolebox wrote:
> As for A6FGHKE and TRIAL, it's impossible to tell their actual level
> values so even if we choose to map them lexicographically, we would
> still not be able to use a universal algorithm that could tell how it
> affects the base version (just lik
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Vladimir Smirnov wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:16:43 +0800
> konsolebox wrote:
>
>> If you avoid trying to adopt versioning practices which are far from
>> practical and very far from common it is (as proven by the example
>> code). The workaround for such rare
Dnia 2015-09-19, o godz. 03:50:52
konsolebox napisał(a):
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dnia 18 września 2015 11:32:15 CEST, konsolebox
> > napisał(a):
> >>This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
> >>me. (Not the form, but the c
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> On 09/18/2015 01:24 PM, konsolebox wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode
>> wrote:
>>> Are you stating this is for package epochs?
>>
>> I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package
>> versions, yes.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 23:16:43 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> If you avoid trying to adopt versioning practices which are far from
> practical and very far from common it is (as proven by the example
> code). The workaround for such rare cases should be done on the
> ebuild's version.
>
Just have a l
On 09/18/2015 01:24 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode
> wrote:
>> Are you stating this is for package epochs?
>
> I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package
> versions, yes.
>
> The current specification I also mentioned is this:
> ht
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> Are you stating this is for package epochs?
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the term. If you mean package
versions, yes.
The current specification I also mentioned is this:
https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/5/pms.html#x1-280003.2
Dnia 18 września 2015 11:32:15 CEST, konsolebox
napisał(a):
>This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
>me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it
>could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider
>revising the current specific
On 09/18/2015 04:32 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
> me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it
> could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider
> revising the current specification.
>
> Note:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:32:15 +0800
> konsolebox wrote:
>> This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
>> me.
>
> Versioning isn't ideal and simple.
If you avoid trying to adopt versioning practices which are far
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:32:15 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
> me.
Versioning isn't ideal and simple.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
This is what an ideal and simple versioning spec should look like to
me. (Not the form, but the concept). I'm posting this here so it
could be used as an added reference to anyone that would consider
revising the current specification.
Note: Assigning default values can be bypassed depending on
23 matches
Mail list logo
