[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice.
From:       Paul de Vrieze <pauldv () cs ! kun ! nl>
Date:       2002-08-19 20:04:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 19 August 2002 03:13, Charles Lacour wrote:
> As far as the name for cvs ebuilds goes, I think Bart had a very elegant
> solution for doing it within the current system. I'd rather see something
> like:
> quakeforge-0.5.0-cvs-20020820201013.ebuild, where the code that pulls the
> CVS entry in picks apart the time and pulls the cvs tree as of that point
> in time.  (If you asked for quakeforge-0.5.0-cvs.ebuild, it would translate
> it to be as if you had typed "quakeforge-0.5.0-cvs-$(date
> +%Y%m%d%H%M%S).ebuild".)
>

Take it a step further and put only -cvs.ebuild files in the portage tree, and 
put in the package repository the ebuild files as proposed. Further cvs 
ebuilds shouldn't be part of a world update when their normal version number 
hasn't changed. (Version numbers should change to reflect the latest 
"official" version number of the package). A possible cvsupdate option might 
check for packages that have not been merged for a certain number of days.

For cvs snapshots I believe the current procedure where a snapshot is put on 
the gentoo mirrors (as SRC_URI) is best. 

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

_______________________________________________
gentoo-dev mailing list
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]