[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another take on package relationship substvars



On 2024-02-22 12:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
I am omitting Breaks, Conflicts, and Replaces because I am not aware of any users of these at the moment. I am open to adding them, if there is a strong use-case.

I think you should include them (and Enhances as Sam Hartman mentioned) for consistency. It seems potentially confusing if some of the relationships fields are included and some are not.

This proposal sounds generally good. I'll have to defer to others who know more about potential corner cases.

--
Richard

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: