Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed
(Sorry Daniel for first sending this e-mail to you only by mistake.)
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:19:39AM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > How about "Depends: foo (<< A) | foo (>> B)"?
> >
> > No, my package does not depend in any way on foo. Depending on foo only
> > to prevent a few specific versions of foo to be installed would be evil,
> > AFAICS...
>
> The best extant solution to this is just to Conflicts: foo (<= B).
> Forcing an upgrade isn't such a bad thing...
Well, that depends. For example, if testing as a version << A of foo,
and we are getting close to a release, conflicting with that version for
no good reason would be somewhat broken. (That's roughly the current
situation with foo=dvb-dev, A=1.0.0, B=1.0.1 and my
package=em8300-headers.)
Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good
reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned
relationships. If there is no good reason, I might try to implement such
a thing and provide it to the maintainers of dpkg...
Regards,
Nicolas
Reply to: