On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 03:01:10 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 23:30:37 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > Not that I know of. I've been just going by what works with dpkg and > > apt. If this is something that has only been made possible accidentally, > > I'll of course back up the src:perl changes. > > This was pretty much intentional. And the usage in perl seems completely > as this was implemented for. That's good to hear as we'd really like to use versioned provides this way in th perliverse :) On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 04:26:04 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > 6) > > > > Package: a > > Depends: p (>= 1), p (<< 2) > > > > Package: b > > Provides: p (=1) > > > > Package: c > > Provides: p (=2) > > > > When a and b are installed, can c be installed without removing a? > > Yes, because b is enough to satisfy the dependency. This is not a > Conflicts/Breaks field after all. > > I think all of Ralf cases are already covered by the functional test > suite, I've just added the one from Adrian. > > <https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/dpkg/dpkg-tests.git/commit/?id=10b721dc> Thanks for all your explanations! Now that all cases, including the 6th one, are clear, is there anything that's missing before the behaviour of dose-builddebcheck can be adapted? Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Billy Joel: We Didn't Start the Fire
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature