| 1 |
On 2019-12-06 Fri 02:15, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original |
| 3 |
> > post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not |
| 4 |
> > just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency |
| 5 |
> > specifications (PMS 8.2.6). |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Perhaps the examples should also reflect this. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I haven't tested anything but bare package names. Feel free to test |
| 11 |
> and let me know how much of the dep syntax works. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Speaking for pkgcheck, it supports the standard atom dep spec, i.e. |
| 14 |
anything that works in package.mask should also work in |
| 15 |
package.deprecated. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
However, note that a matching pkg found both in the base package.mask |
| 18 |
and package.deprecated won't be flagged as deprecated as it's currently |
| 19 |
assumed those are mutually exclusive entries (and such entries might be |
| 20 |
flagged at a later time). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Tim |
Archives