Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade

[Dieter Baron <dillo%KD119105101110.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp@localhost>]

In article <20080521124325.GA160%britannica.bec.de@localhost> Joerg wrote:
: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:23:11PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
: >   Exactly; in much the same way as is done for PKGREVISION now.  If a
: > package doesnt need it, it uses the default of 0, with no effort and
: > no visible clutter in either the Makefile or the resulting version
: > number, and no change from existing behaviour.

: No, it does not work like PKGREVISION.

  It works exactly like PKGREVISION in that it does not incur any
complexity for packages that don't need the functionality.  That was
(as cannot be seen since you deleted the context) in answer to the
objection of adding this complexity to all packages.

: PKGREVISION naturally extends the
: Dewey syntax and infact is just a slightly more restricted version of
: modifiers like beta or pl. All examples raised so far fall into the
: category of missing thoughts before. The PKGEPOCH syntax is anything but
: that and fully agree with Al that it is I don't see the justified
: complexity. Using another meta character is even more problematic -- we
: are already running low and haven't even decided how to encode the
: interesting data.

  Please take the time to disentangle the paragraph above.  I get the
gist that you are against PKGEPOCH, but all detail is lost on me.


  So, Joerg and Al: what are your proposed ways of dealing with the
problem at hand?  Ignore it, and let users sort out the mess on their
own and by hand?  Rename PKGBASE with all the mess and complexity
(strange name of installed packages, CONFLICTS, handling renames,
mismatch between PKGPATH and PKGBASE) that means?  Any other ideas?

                                      yours,
                                        dillo