Re: [proaudio] (cvs|svn|git) vs 9999

[Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:22:26 +0200
Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:56:58 +0200
> Frieder Bürzele <evermind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Kuther wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:06:37 +0200
> > > Frieder Bürzele <evermind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > >> carmen wrote:
> > >>     
> > >>> wondering if theres any concensus on -9999 versions vs seperate
> > >>> -cvs directories? with 9999, with -cvs, it breaks the continuity
> > >>> of one directory per package, and additional checks must be
> > >>> added to avoid conflicts.
> > >>>
> > >>> as an example, ive installed libgig-cvs. now on a -DNuav world,
> > >>> its trying to install libgig-2.0.2. i had to add libgig-9999 to
> > >>> package.provided (thus the seperate -cvs version didnt prevent
> > >>> me from /etc/portage file editing after all. id rather edit
> > >>> package.keywords once to enable -9999 version than have to
> > >>> continually do -uav to make sure non-cvs versions arent being
> > >>> brought in beacise i didnt populate package.provided..
> > >>> preemptive handling of the situation.
> > >>>
> > >>> another example is the patchage-cvs and om-cvs ebuilds that i
> > >>> submitted a while ago. the author has changed to SVN, at a
> > >>> different host. at this point, the -cvs should be changed to
> > >>> -svn to be consistent (but still no consistency to whether a
> > >>> 'unreleased' version is -cvs, -svn, -git, -bzr, -mercurial, or
> > >>> what... confusing users as to which version to try). also it
> > >>> doesnt show up in eg eix or esearch 'available versions'. 
> > >>>
> > >>> in any case, my vote is for -9999. this is what the main portage
> > >>> tree does as well..
> > >>>
> > >>> c,c
> > >>>
> > >>>   
> > >>>       
> > >> first I just wanted to have -cvs -svn, -... in the overlay to
> > >> see clearly if it's a -cvs -svn, -...  snapshot or not.
> > >> But over time I feel like using -9999 is the better way as it
> > >> minimize (I hope) maintenance.
> > >>
> > >> So If I change all -cvs -svn, -... to -9999 what keywords should
> > >> they be? ~xARCH or -*
> > >>
> > >> @all
> > >> please express your opinions? Should we change to 9999?
> > >>
> > >> Greetz
> > >>     Frieder
> > >>
> > >>     
> > >
> > > Hi all :)
> > >
> > >   
> > great to hear from you again :)
> > 
> > > i guess you know my opinion on that one. -9999!
> > >
> > >   
> > yes :)
> > > IMHO it's _definately_ easier for the maintainer, but complicates
> > > things up for the users a bit, as -9999 should also use -* as
> > > keyword (see the e17 ebuilds by vapier, they all use that scheme)
> > > So users will have to add the respective packages to their
> > > package.keywords file.
> > > Anyways this is the right way: 
> > > - no double-mobble and DEPEND weirdness, so -9999
> > > - live CVS/SVN stuff can be broken, or break other things, so -*
> > > keyword
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > PS: i think i have some spare time now and might help out a bit
> > > again. 
> > so If you've time and willing to fix this go on. I'll look into it
> > later Tell me what you've fixed so we won't collide
> > perhaps we can do an update to the wiki to clear up this changes
> > 
> > Greetz
> >     Frieder
> > 
> 
> Heya Frieder ;)
> 
> ..just converting all stuff in media-sound right now.

d'oh, media-libs i mean.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature