[pacman-dev] conflict and provision versions

[Xavier]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 01:03:39PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 11:55 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I found the current behavior a little confusing at first, but actually, it's
> > alright.
> > Suppose you have a package which depends on provision>=2.0-2 , and let's see
> > what a package needs to provide for satisfying it :
> > * 'provision' -> NO
> > * 'provision 2.0' -> OK
> > * 'provision 2.0-1' -> NO
> > * 'provision 2.0-2' -> OK
> >
> > So any 2.0-x dep will be satisfied by provision 2.0 .
> >
> > Now, if the dependency is provision>=2.0 :
> > * 'provision' -> NO
> > * 'provision 2.0' -> OK
> > * 'provision 2.0-1' -> OK
> > * 'provision 2.0-2' -> OK
> >
> > So the 2.0 dep will be satified by any 2.0-x
> 
> OK, there have been many replies, but all I want to say is this- this
> is *good enough* for me. We are talking niche cases here, we have much
> bigger problems in the code to solve than what basically boils down to
> a feature request in a brand new feature.
> 

I'm beginning to agree with Nagy and Stonecrest that this behavior of
'provision 2.0' might be confusing.
But that's just how versioncmp works, and I don't think we need to change
that.

So maybe we should just use versions without releases for dependencies and
conflicts, and on the other side, for package version and provision version,
always have a release version.

depends or conficts   package-version or provision-version    match
provision>=2.0        provision-2.0-1                         yes
provision>=2.0-2      provision-2.0-1                         no