| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:40:27 -0800 |
| 2 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I'm for ranged licenses, but I think attention needs to be paid to the |
| 4 |
> syntax. The postfix [] form does nicely separate the version |
| 5 |
> information from the actual license name (moreso than the traditional |
| 6 |
> CPV atom), but the LGPL[>=2&<3] example looks to be overloading it, |
| 7 |
> when we already have AND/OR at the higher level. |
| 8 |
> LICENSE="|| ( Eclipse ( LGPL[>=2] LGPL[<3] ) )" |
| 9 |
> Which is, Eclipse OR (LGPL v2 up to, but not including LGPLv3). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The ( ) form means something else for package dependencies, and so can't |
| 12 |
be used for ranged dependencies. In particular: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
( >=foo/bar-3 <foo-bar/4 ) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
will (correctly) be matched if both foo/bar-5 and foo/bar-1 are |
| 17 |
installed, which can happen due to slots. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives