Re: Adding dependency syntax for a per-package tag probe

Just to throw in my 2 cents.  I like the format listed below
much
better.  (I'm not sure I'll ever use it.. but format wise it
makes a lot
more sense to me.)

--Mark

Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Michael Schroeder <mlssuse.de> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm saying that rpm has no means to say
"I want this
>> requirement fulfilled and also that requirement *by
the same
>> package*".
>>
> 
> OK, now there's a generalization onto string valued
tags:
>    Requires:
>
perl.Arch(i[3456]86|pentium[34]).Os([Ll]inux).Vendor(*RedHat
*|*SuSE*).Disttag(fc[23456]|rhel[345]|mdv|suse*).Repotag(epe
l|rf|fr)
> 
>> = 5.8.1
> 
> Perfectly parseable because tagnames (following a '.'
preceding a '(')
> are explicitly known, generalizes to patterns between
matching
> parentheses, no legacy issues if no whitespace and/or
commas are
> included (older rpm will just use the mess as a single
string), and I
> can apply the patterns to arrays of the usual data
types if I'm
> careful about converting to ASCII (or utf8  first.
> 
> I can live with that. Is that acceptable? Syntax and
representation is
> easy, I really only care about the underlying
implementation in rpm.
_______________________________________________
Rpm-devel mailing list
Rpm-devellists.dulug.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-devel