19:26 <@ferringb> Halcy0n: can you clarify the policy documentation for this by chance? 19:26 <@ferringb> specifically "don't make 2.6.5 be in reality 2.6.6" ? 19:27 <@Halcy0n> ferringb: We can make it more clear in devmanual.
Copying from http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html PV Package version (excluding revision, if any), for example 6.3. How is that not clean enough? Should we change it to "Package *official upstream* version" ?
(In reply to comment #1) > Copying from > > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html > > PV Package version (excluding revision, if any), for example 6.3. > The idea is to provide instructions after what happened in bug 330667.
Created attachment 250859 [details, diff] proposed patch Review this patch please or I will commit it in 72 hours
(In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=250859) [details] > proposed patch > > Review this patch please or I will commit it in 72 hours > How about: This should actually reflect the upstream versioning scheme --> It should reflect the upstream versioning scheme
Noted. Anything else?
"It should reflect the upstream versioning scheme." Isn't this sufficient? "Patched versions should make use of _pX suffix to state clearly the existence of additional patches." Adding _pX and fixing MY_PV and S for minor patches? I don't think this helps.
(In reply to comment #6) > "It should reflect the upstream versioning scheme." > > Isn't this sufficient? It is. Please make it so.
Fixed
