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. |