On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:43:55PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:13:25PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Depends: foo | ! bar
> > That can be read as "If bar is installed, then foo must also be
> > installed".
> That still sounds redundant, and can be currently expressed with
> Depends: foo, foo | bar
That's not equivalent: in the original case you can have neither foo nor
bar installed.
What is equivalent is:
foo Depends: foo | foobar-dummy
foobar-dummy Conflicts: bar
Note that it would require a major rewrite of the logic of the testing
scripts to cope with syntax like "foo | !bar". And given the total lack
of gain, it's not something that I'm willing to do or to support.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpnwOI933TWj.pgp
Description: PGP signature