Re: Small request regarding the 0.5.0 release.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:48:45 +0100
Walther Maldonado <walther.md@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:07:57 +0100
> Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Am Donnerstag, den 13.11.2008, 18:12 +0100 schrieb Walther Maldonado:
> > > 
> > > Is it too much to ask that the version of the unpacked directory be
> > > corrected ("emelfm2-0.5.0") to allow smoother incorporation to the
> > > portage tree?
> > 
> > I had a similar problem with the packages for Fedora, see
> > http://www.freelists.org/archives/emelfm2/04-2008/msg00003.html
> > 
> > It's easy to work around in rpm, not sure about portage though.
> 
> It was easy to work around, that is true. I just suggested that the package 
> version convention would be accepted to make for a smoother integration into 
> Portage. if this small mistake is not going to be corrected, very well, I 
> will suggest the modified ebuild to support this inconsistency anyway.

I don't control (or even see) the release-script, and I don't yet know when or 
if tooar will be able to change that script. I was going to manually change the 
0.5.0 archive content, but didn't have time to figure out why its size 
increased by about 40 kB merely due to a renamed dir ...

Meanwhile, the problem will not re-surface until the next .x.0 release. 0.x.1 
etc work fine.

Regards
Tom


-- 
Users can unsubscribe from the list by sending email to 
emelfm2-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field or by 
logging into the web interface.

Other related posts: