| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:03:42 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:49:18 +0100 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> > wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Hi all, PMS says in [1]: "A blocker is considered to be matched if |
| 7 |
> >> its associated package dependency specification is not matched." |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > I seem to recall not implementing this at all in Paludis, and just |
| 10 |
> > having an error message which suggests that someone has done |
| 11 |
> > something awful and that we should deal with it if the issue ever |
| 12 |
> > comes up... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Hm, the above seems to be your own wording [1]. ;-) Should we change |
| 15 |
> it to something like "blockers are not allowed in an any-of group"? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sounds good. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
(Actually, I think we do support "|| ( !a b )". What we don't handle is |
| 20 |
nested things like "|| ( a || ( !b c ) )".) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I find one case in the tree where something similar is used. |
| 23 |
> virtual/perl-Exporter-5.680.0 has this in its RDEPEND: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> || ( |
| 26 |
> ( |
| 27 |
> >=dev-lang/perl-5.17.11 |
| 28 |
> <=dev-lang/perl-5.19.2 |
| 29 |
> !perl-core/Exporter |
| 30 |
> ) |
| 31 |
> ~perl-core/Exporter-${PV} |
| 32 |
> ) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Do we consider this legitimate usage? And does it actually work in |
| 35 |
> package managers? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
That looks highly dodgy, and not just because of the || ( ) dependency. |
| 38 |
Developers need to be reminded that ( >=a-2 <a-3 ) does not mean "a, |
| 39 |
version between 2 and 3". |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives