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

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
> package.

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...)



Reply to: