| 1 |
Thomas Flavel wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 07:18:32PM -0700, drobbins@g.o wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > What if I code it so that: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > DEPEND="~foo/bar-1" |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > would match foo/bar-1.0, foo/bar-1.1, foo/bar-1.2, etc. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > DEPEND="~foo/bar-1.0" |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > could match foo/bar-1.0.1 as well as foo/bar-1.0-r1, etc. Is that a useful |
| 14 |
> > extension or am I generalizing the functionality too much by matching |
| 15 |
> > sub-versions as well as multiple revs? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What about that situation. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think that would be nice. Would it make more sense though to say |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> DEPEND="=foo/bar-1*" |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> and |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> DEPEND="=food/bar-1.0*" |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> that way >=, = etc could be combined with wildcards, like: |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> DEPEND=">=foo/bar-1*" |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I whould prefere wildcards too. To simplify coding I think that a |
| 34 |
wildcard should only match a version or |
| 35 |
subversion number. So things like foo/b*r-1.0 don't work. Maybe thinks |
| 36 |
like {alpha,beta} [1-2] whould be nice too. |
| 37 |
But the ~ syntax should be easier to code and satisfy our needs too. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
achim~ |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> - Tom |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 45 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 46 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 47 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
Archives