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

[Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature