Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI-1 (or >1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Kent Fredric wrote:
>  On 6/15/07, John R. Graham <n3440d@×××××.com> wrote:
> > I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot
> > be elegantly solved by the current  dependency syntax.  Every time I've
> > come across this, it's boiled down to a range.  For example, package
> > some-cat/foo has the following versions in the tree
> >     some-cat/foo-4.0.0-r2
> >     some-cat/foo-4.1
> >     some-cat/foo-4.1.1
> >     some-cat/foo-4.1.2-r2
> >     some-cat/foo-4.2.1-r5
> >     some-cat/foo-4.3
> >     some-cat/foo-4.4
> >
>
>  /me votes for rubyesqe range syntax
>
>  some-cat/foo-( s:4.1 ..  s:4.2)  // start at slot 4.1 , and go upto
>  and including 4.2
>  some-cat/foo-( s:4.1 ... s:4.2) //  start at slot 4.1 and go upto, but
>  not including 4.2
>  some-cat/foo-( v:4.1.0 .. v:4.2.0  ) // start at version 4.1.0 and go
>  upto and including 4.2.0
>  some-cat/foo-( v:4.1.0 ... v:4.2.0  ) // start at version 4.1.0 and go
>  upto , but excluding 4.2.0
>
>  I know thats probably not possible in a bash env tho, but hopefully
>  the 'range' concept  will give some inspiration, as IMO, having to
>  specify the ebuild atom name for both upper and lower values is
>  redundant, and easily missused as lamented by Vlastimil Babka
>
>  /me hides in his corner to avoid abuse from people despising ruby lovers
>
>  /me goes and joins ruby addicts anonymous

As a side note, while we're talking ranged dependencies.

It would also be really, really nice to be able to (un)mask
ranges in /etc/portage/package.(un)mask.

Just my 1.953 Eurocent (adjusted for inflation).

Rgards,
Tobias

-- 
In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list