Re: New package dependency field format
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:21:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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.
"total lack" - atually, this contradicts your own statement above. The
benefits of conditional depends can easily be found, transparent (and
not offensive) i18n integration is the best example.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bloch+conditional+i18n&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=20030404094011%243557%40gated-at.bofh.it&rnum=3
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=77324
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bloch+conditional+i18n&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=20030218152004%24096f%40gated-at.bofh.it&rnum=2
MfG,
Eduard.
Reply to: