| 1 |
W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 11∶14 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. |
| 5 |
> > This section defines one or more repository structure definitions |
| 6 |
> > using sequential integer keys. The definition keyed as ``0`` |
| 7 |
> > is the most preferred structure. The package manager should use |
| 8 |
> > the first structure format it recognizes as supported, and ignore any |
| 9 |
> > it does not recognize. If this section is not present, the package |
| 10 |
> > manager should behave as if only ``flat`` structure were supported. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It is not at all clear from this how integer keys are ordered. The |
| 13 |
> paragraph only says that "0" is most preferred, but says nothing about |
| 14 |
> comparison of other numbers. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> For example, if there are keys "-1", "0", and "1" (these are |
| 17 |
> "sequential integer keys", right?), what is their order of preference? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Please suggest a better wording. The idea was to use 0=, 1=, 2=... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Best regards, |
| 24 |
Michał Górny |
Archives