Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:16:55
Message-Id: CAJnmqwZmUOjqOF_qGd3Ann+DZ5ryOUmQAoZaN+Hh89tMrY6FBQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage. by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
2 > konsolebox posted on Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:09:03 +0800 as excerpted:
3 >
4 >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
5 >>> Sorry, but I don't get it. How would these be different from the
6 >>> existing "=pkg-1.0.2a*" and "=pkg-1.0.2*"?
7 >>
8 >> Because they could also match pkg-1.0.2aa (not sure if it's still valid
9 >> atom) and pkg-1.0.20 respectively.
10 >
11 > What about combining (positive) deps and blockers, deping on =pkg-1.0.2a*
12 > and blocking >=pkg-1.0.2b ? Wouldn't that resolve the unintended matches?
13
14 Possible workaround but all I'd say is that it adds complexity or
15 noise. We also do other things besides blocking. Sometimes we just
16 call dependencies, sometimes we just apply or disable flags - such are
17 the cases where doing the opposite action to excluded versions is not
18 always applicable.