19 Nov
2007
19 Nov
'07
12:16 p.m.
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 05:55:44PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote: > > I'm writing from an internet caffee, because the results I found shocked > me;-) > > The blames (just joking): > > 1. "... 'cron 2.0' to satisfy the 'cron>=2.0' dependency of other > packages.". > > Only valid version numbers are allowed, for example 2.0-1. > > I actually hesitated when writing this. And I'm still confused. > Is it ok to have a 'cron>=2.0' dependency, but not providing 'cron 2.0' ? > Most versioned dependencies don't include any revisions. > See grep -r 'depends.*>=' /var/abs/core 1. As I told in the subject: conflict-version is undocumented (what's more, the documentation says you cannot use version numbers...). So we should fix this: a.) conflict syntax is the same as depends syntax b.) 'foo' conflict covers exactly the same set of packages as 'foo' depends (so for example (versioned ;-) provisions are also checked). 2. Back to versioned provisions: My concept of versioned provision was: alternative (pkgname, pkgver) pairs [which means this package is equivalent with _one_ certain package], where pkgver="" is also allowed [which means in my concept that pkgver was "lost", NOT any; this decision is crutial here, one of the must important changes(*)]<- this is the clearest and easiest-to-implement solution imho (you needn't modify alpm_vercmp). So for example kernelck-2.6.22-1 provides kernel-2.6.22-1 and so on. Vmiklos suggested on irc, that I should use depends-like syntax; such as provides 'foo>=1.0' but I didn't like that because this can lead to decision problems. What do you think? If you also prefer this (Xavier, you mentioned dependencies here, too), then my compromise: change the 'provname provver' syntax to 'provname=provver' (this is just a s/' '/'='/ in my patch), and later you can implement more general provides syntax without breaking the current "style". (*)So I ask you again (you should make a decision): What should versionless provision mean? a.) this provision does NOT satisfy 'provision>=2.0-1' (I've chosen this in my patch) b.) 'no provver' means 'ANY provver' (this is also acceptable, but imho 'provision>=2.0-1' means that we cannot accept "any" provision, just the "new" ones) c.) current method: use pkgver (imho forget it ;-) Bye, ngaba ---------------------------------------------------- SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/