Re: Can I simulate a weak conflict?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > I'd like my em8300 package's dependencies to say something like "If you
> > use udev, I'd recommend you use at least 0.060-1."
> > [...]
> > I would translate it to "I'd recommend you have either no udev
> > installed, or at least version 0.060-1.".
> > [...]
> > "Recommends: udev (>= 0.060-1)".
> How does this not express what you want to say? It recommends a
> minimum version of the package, and allows for no installation of the
While it allows for no installation of udev, I'd understand it as "for
most users, have no udev is equivalent to having an old one, and both
are worse than having a new udev", while I want to mean "for most users,
having no udev is equivalent to having a new one, and both are better
than having an old udev".
I pseudo-mathematic verbiage, I want
udev (>= 0.060-1) = no udev > udev (<< 0.060-1)
while the recommends line means
udev (>= 0.060-1) > no udev = udev (<< 0.060-1)
Am I clear enough about the difference?
> > But none of these 2 solution satisfy me. Can anyone think of a way I
> > can express what I want?
> Perhaps if you express it more clearly to us first :-)
Is it better now?
And conflicting with udev (<< 0.060-1) isn't satisfactory either, since
some people may be happy with an old udev. (They only would have devices
files attributed to the root group rather than the video group, unless
they are able to configure udev themselves...)