Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:46:19PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, yes, they are equivalent.
> Ah, yes, given that the Python-Policy only allows one default
> Python interpreter, not more than one.
Given that dpkg allows only one package called "foo" to be installed at
once, and that Provides: are unversioned,
Depends: foo (>= bar), foo (<< baz)
and
Depends: foo (>= bar)
Conflicts: foo (>= baz)
are always the same.
This *could* conceivably change in the future if we get versioned provides
(and thus can have a package foo (1.2), and a package bar that 'Provides:
foo (= 2.0)', in which case a Depends: foo (>= 1.2), foo (<= 1.3), would
have different behaviour to a 'Conflicts: foo (>> 1.3)'. It could also
change depending on how "subarch" support is eventually implemented:
if you're allowed to have foo 2.0 (i386) installed at the same time as
foo 1.3 (ia64) on the same machine, eg.
But all that's bizarre arcana. At the moment it's true in all cases,
and it's likely to be the same as far as python's concerned forever.
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.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Reply to: