| 1 |
On 02/01/17 16:51, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long |
| 6 |
>> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Ulrich |
| 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. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
"atom version" should work no? (minus pre-/suffix ofc) |
Archives