On 29 June 2012 17:32, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> EUSCAN_VERSION=0.71
>
> I don't know how difficult that would be for euscan to pickup on, but
> since this would have no bearing on actual package behavior, only on
> euscan, I'd guess it shouldn't require going thru the formal PMS pro
Kent Fredric posted on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:07:58 +1200 as excerpted:
> For the most part it seems to get upstream / portage versioning right,
> but occasionally you get miss-matches for some reason.
>
> It would be nice to allow to provide some mapping mechanism that existed
> on the overlay itse
> I'd like to see the information regarding current tree state updated
> more regularly than the full upstream scan. Especially when looking at
> the herd view, it can be hard to keep track of which bumps have already
> been completed.
Good idea- it should be much cheaper to do the tree update tha
On 2012-06-27 17:51, Federico "fox" Scrinzi wrote:
Hi everybody!
I'm working on a GSoC project for enhancing Euscan
(http://euscan.iksaif.net/). Euscan allows to check if a given
package/ebuild has new upstream versions or not. It uses different
heuristic to scan upstream and grab new versions a
