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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 54 and hyphens in PV
From:       Piotr_Jaroszyński <peper () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2009-05-28 15:55:16
Message-ID: d77765540905280855m5158722aqeed6a3842fca7311 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/5/28 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) <hkBst@gentoo.org>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
>> 2009/5/28 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
>>>>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo/foo-1a_live.ebuild
>>>>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a-live.ebuild
>>>> you probably mean:
>>>> ${PORTDIR}/app-misc/foo-1a/foo-1a.live.ebuild
>>> No, I mean what I had written, namely to use an underscore as
>>> separator, i.e., "_live". But when the version is just "live" alone,
>>> one would suppress the underscore for aesthetic reasons, i.e. instead
>>> of "foo-1a-_live" it would be "foo-1a-live".
>>>
>>>> but how would their vdb or binpkg names be unique?
>>>> vdb for example:
>>>> app-misc/foo-1a_live for app-misc/foo
>>> PN=foo, PV=1a_live => app-misc/foo-1a_live
>>>
>>>> app-misc/foo-1a_live for app-misc/foo-1a
>>> PN=foo-1a, PV=live => app-misc/foo-1a-live
>>>
>>>> am I missing something?
>>> Everything is easy, if you keep the following rule in mind:
>>>
>>>>> With our current versioning scheme the rule is very simple: ${P} is
>>>>> split into ${PN} and ${PV} at the last hyphen. This can be done in
>>>>> a straight forward way by regexp matching, and I would really hate
>>>>> to lose this nice property.
>>>> I don't understand why this property is important. Can you please
>>>> explain?
>>> See above, it automatically avoids any ambiguities in splitting P into
>>> PN and PV. And look at function "pkgsplit" in Portage: It can just
>>> treat PV as an opaque string.
>>>
>>> What would be the advantage to use a hyphen instead of an underscore?
>>
>> Mainly the thing you observed yourself - foo_live is a bit
>> inconsistent with current versions.
>
> Ulrich is proposing foo-live if live is the entire version, foo_live is not a
> legal `package name and version'. (It could be a package name though.)

I know, it's also inconsistent. Anyway that's really not that
important. We could forbid package names that end with a -$PV where
$PV is a valid version spec. That would make package names like foo-1b
invalid (didn't see anything named like that in the tree anyway).

>> The case you mention can be avoided with another restriction in PMS.
>> Buut we might as well go all the way and change the version separator
>> to -- or something, which would be the most flexible.
>
> That would also be a good solution though we don't seem to need it yet. It would
> also entail compatibility issues.

Not with g55.

-- 
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński


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