| 1 |
On 9/14/15 9:13 AM, konsolebox wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. |
| 3 |
> <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 9/14/15 6:35 AM, konsolebox wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Many times we need to match packages like this: |
| 6 |
>>> something-1.0.2a.* |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Could you give specific examples, i.e. what packages, what |
| 9 |
>> dependencies, why is that needed? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> For accuracy and peace of mind regardless of how often conflicts |
| 12 |
> could happen. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I agree =pkg-4.1* also matching pkg-4.10 is a concern. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In that case though, it would change the focus of the discussion to how |
| 17 |
* operator should work, not necessarily adding a new ~> operator. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think it'd be okay to e.g. change the meaning and behavior of * in a |
| 20 |
new EAPI. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I can't give any example yet, but we know that if pkg-4.1.2 exists |
| 23 |
> and pkg-4.10.0 exists as well, then we can't use '=pkg-4.1*' to only |
| 24 |
> target pkg-4.1.*. This could also happen more often with packages |
| 25 |
> having 4 version numbers. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's unfortunate this is rather theoretical now. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Consider looking for some real examples, I believe this could really |
| 30 |
help the discussion. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Paweł |
Archives