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

Le jeudi 12 avril 2007 à 14:47 -0400, Jeff Johnson a écrit
:
> On 4/12/07, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhotlaposte.net> wrote:
> > Le jeudi 12 avril 2007 à 12:27 -0400, Jeff
Johnson a écrit :
> >
> > > So the two rules are:
> > >     1) Always try to use closed ranges.
> > >     2) Use a non-package marker like
rpmlib(...) to track some functionality
> > >     explictly.
> > >
> > > I hope that's clearer than mud.
> >
> > (hoping I understood)
> >
> > And that would be fine if you controlled the whole
rpm namespace, but a
> > very usual case is you build a package on top of
pre-existing package
> > pools you have no control of, so the only thing
you can play on is your
> > own requires and buildrequires.
> >
> 
> I made no claim of "control".
> 
> I also think I said essentially what you are saying,
that -- even if
> syntax/mechanism for Provide: ranges existed in rpm
today -- nothing
> would change.

You'll note I was asking for ranges in Requires, not
Provides

> Bad packaging is bad packaging.

And imperfection the mark of real life

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

_______________________________________________
Rpm-devel mailing list
Rpm-devellists.dulug.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-devel

>
> You'll note I was asking for ranges in Requires, not
Provides
>

Suggest syntax then. I really don't see why
   Requires: foo > 1
   Requires foo < 2
is not simple and obvious, but I'll parse whatever and
generate the
two requires.

Less time to implement than typing in this thread.

I'm all abt efficiency these days ...

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-devel mailing list
Rpm-devellists.dulug.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/rpm-devel