A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed
Hi,
One package of mine needs to conflict with a few consecutive versions
of a package. Let's say that the package foo introduced a feature that
conflicts with my package in version A and removed it in version B.
So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried
to specify it with "Conflicts: foo (>> A), foo (<< B)" but, as I feared,
it does not work since it now conflicts both with all versions >> A and
with all versions << B (as A << B, that means all versions).
Is there a way to specify such a conflict? Listing all the versions
would work, but that's not really convenient... Any suggestion is
welcome.
Hence, I think a new way to specify versionned relationship between
packages might be useful. For example, the conflict I need might be
written as "Conflicts: foo (>> A, << B)". Is such a feature planned for
the future? It's certainly too late to have something for sarge, so it
certainly won't be implemented before sarge+1, and we won't be able to
use it before sarge+2.
Currently, there's no need for such a feature for positive dependencies
(Depends, Recommends and Suggests), because there is a workaround:
"Depends: foo (>> A), foo (<< B)" works for "Depends: foo (>> A, << B)",
but it only works because only one version of foo can be installed at a
time. If versionned provides are ever implemented, it may become
possible to have several versions of a package at a time, thus breaking
this workaround.
Any comment?
Nicolas
Reply to: