| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long |
| 5 |
> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Ulrich |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Reading "man 5 ebuild" |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Atom Bases |
| 12 |
The base atom is just a full category/packagename. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Examples: |
| 15 |
>sys-apps/sed< |
| 16 |
>sys-libs/zlib< |
| 17 |
>net-misc/dhcp< |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Atom Versions |
| 20 |
It is nice to be more specific and say that only certain versions of atoms are acceptable. Note that versions must be combined |
| 21 |
with a prefix (see below). Hence you may add a version number as a postfix to the base. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Examples: |
| 24 |
sys-apps/sed->4.0.5< |
| 25 |
sys-libs/zlib->1.1.4-r1< |
| 26 |
net-misc/dhcp->3.0_p2< |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This makes me think that: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
1. "Atom" is the term we use for a broad collection of dependency types. |
| 31 |
2. Atoms have parts. |
| 32 |
3. The parts we want are the "Base name" and "Version" elements. |
| 33 |
4. Thus, we want a succinct sub-specifier of atom. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So, Can "atom base-versions" be a thing? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Its much less "Omg" than having to write '$CAT/$PF' or "package dependency specifications" |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Especially as the latter is also vague and doesn't actually solve the problem of ambiguity |
| 40 |
stating the specific narrow range required. |
Archives