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

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting version-related tree policies
From:       Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2016-11-28 13:17:20
Message-ID: 1480339040.15702.10.camel () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Le vendredi 04 novembre 2016 à 10:16 +0100, Ulrich Mueller a écrit  :
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 11/03/2016 05:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > 
> > > == Policy changes? ==
> > > I think that the following new policies could make sense:
> > > 
> > > 1. Revision number must be no longer than 9999:
> 
> > 
> > You likely mean "no higher than 9999", longer than would give large
> > values
> 
> The wording would be similar to "no longer than 4 digits".
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 1a. to make <=X-r9999 reliable,
> > > 1b. to prevent pathological uses of revision as date.
> 
> > 
> > Given revision in most cases is incremental (except for some -r100,
> > -r200) cases, some structure here is likely good. I take it we're
> > talking about devmanual changes in this case for policy?
> 
> Yes, it would be purely devmanual/tree policy. PMS will still mandate
> that the package manager can handle arbitrary long versions.
> 
> Looks like using multiples of 100 is best practice if there is
> the same PV in different slots. Not sure if we should codify that
> somewhere. (If nobody contradicts, this message could be used as
> future policy reference, though. :)

There was much contradiction when this was "discovered" being used in
webkit-gtk ebuilds back when slot 3 was added. However, I don't
remember anyone reaching a solution that would be practical keeping
only one cat/pn.

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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