Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ranged licenses
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:07:54
Message-Id: 20071129030424.1a4baaa0@blueyonder.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ranged licenses by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:58:07 -0800
2 "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
3 > > The ( ) form means something else for package dependencies, and so
4 > > can't be used for ranged dependencies. In particular:
5 > > ( >=foo/bar-3 <foo-bar/4 )
6 > > will (correctly) be matched if both foo/bar-5 and foo/bar-1 are
7 > > installed, which can happen due to slots.
8 >
9 > Ok, I revise that for slots then:
10 > LICENSE="|| ( Eclipse ( LGPL[>=2] !LGPL[>=3] ) )"
11 > (which is more in line with my description of the license string).
12 > The !/NEGATION might be inside the [] blocks, since the AND and OR
13 > operators are.
14
15 This gets really messy and hard to define sanely when you consider
16 things like slot and use dependencies. It also involves a lot of
17 duplication of package names. You're also breaking the package form
18
19 ( >=foo/bar-2 !>=foo/bar-3 )
20
21 which has a different existing meaning (as do all other forms based
22 around repeating the cat/pkg part inside a block).
23
24 Really, the sanest way to do ranged dependencies is by extending the
25 syntax of individual package / license dep specs, and the postfix
26 [opver&opver] / [opver|opver] form is the least icky proposal.
27
28 --
29 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature