Version 3.04 is available on ctan. Ebuild stays the same, if package is on mirror. ----------- slightly of topic: Are there any other ways for version bumps in the tex sub-tree? Thanks Daniel
(In reply to comment #0) > Version 3.04 is available on ctan. Added to CVS. > slightly of topic: Are there any other ways for version bumps in the tex > sub-tree? I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but I changed the SRC_URI for glossaries to pull straight from CTAN and just rename the zip file so trivial version bumps can be done more easily with no ebuild changes.
(In reply to comment #1) > > slightly of topic: Are there any other ways for version bumps in the tex > > sub-tree? > > I don't know what you mean by this exactly, but I changed the SRC_URI for > glossaries to pull straight from CTAN and just rename the zip file so > trivial version bumps can be done more easily with no ebuild changes. bad idea: if a new version is uploaded to CTAN then the .zip will change and break the digests.
(In reply to comment #2) > bad idea: if a new version is uploaded to CTAN then the .zip will change and > break the digests. Doesn't portage check gentoo mirrors first then check upstream? IIRC, that's the reasoning I've seen used before since this usage is already done in other places in the tree. If you really don't like it I have no problem with reverting it, but it just seems like we can figure out a better solution than always have to manually copy over archives.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > bad idea: if a new version is uploaded to CTAN then the .zip will change and > > break the digests. > > Doesn't portage check gentoo mirrors first then check upstream? IIRC, that's > the reasoning I've seen used before since this usage is already done in > other places in the tree. unless you unset GENTOO_MIRRORS the -> operator for SRC_URI is nice if the tarball doesnt change but is poorly named: imagine ${PV}/${PN}.zip then using arrows is fine. however if the tarball is changed in place then it doesnt work well. > If you really don't like it I have no problem with reverting it, but it just > seems like we can figure out a better solution than always have to manually > copy over archives. i'm affraid this is the best solution, unless you can convice CTAN admins to provide versionned tarballs. and you can write a very simple script to do it for you, or even some tricks in the ebuild like there used to be in eg netpbm (look at old ebuilds in tree)
(In reply to comment #4) > unless you unset GENTOO_MIRRORS > the -> operator for SRC_URI is nice if the tarball doesnt change but is > poorly named: imagine ${PV}/${PN}.zip > then using arrows is fine. however if the tarball is changed in place then > it doesnt work well. Right, I know all this. However, I've seen this method work reasonably well for other packages. > i'm affraid this is the best solution, unless you can convice CTAN admins to > provide versionned tarballs. > > and you can write a very simple script to do it for you, or even some tricks > in the ebuild like there used to be in eg netpbm (look at old ebuilds in > tree) I have scripts to do it for me. It's just annoying. :P Anyway, I'll revert and upload tarballs as per usual.
