Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> Another thing is that there can be two packages with different >> dependencies, but the same name and version. I propose an optional id >> field which identifies an unique package. This field would be added to >> the input and the output (and it could be string, so we can pass >> hashsums). > > Right, good point. This can be a bit tricky as currently the only (and > forcibly necessary) package identifier in CUDF model is <package, > version>. The id would not work though, consider the following example: [...] > How is it currently handled in apt and friends? Cupt uniquely identifies the version entry by the pair (package_name, version). Hence, I disagree with adding some additional 'id's or something to the spec, it's ugly and not necessary IMO. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature