| 1 |
W dniu nie, 04.03.2018 o godzinie 12∶18 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Warn if the '=' package dependency operator is used along with pure |
| 5 |
> > version with no revision specified. This means to catch a common mistake |
| 6 |
> > of developers copying '=' from upstream dependency specification while |
| 7 |
> > '~' operator would be more appropriate. This causes unintended depgraph |
| 8 |
> > breakage when the dependencies are revbumped e.g. due to dependency |
| 9 |
> > changes, or prevents people from upgrading. |
| 10 |
> > The developers are given two suggestions: either to use '~' if any |
| 11 |
> > revision is acceptable, or to explicitly specify '-r0' when they really |
| 12 |
> > do accept -r0 only. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I won't be opposed against this, but there doesn't seem to be any |
| 15 |
> policy that would require explicit -r0 in dependency specifications. |
| 16 |
> So this is a policy change which should be discussed in gentoo-dev |
| 17 |
> before it can be added to repoman. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Also according to PMS, no revision and -r0 (and even -r00) are |
| 20 |
> completely equivalent. so IMHO we should think twice before |
| 21 |
> introducing behaviour that would treat them differently in some |
| 22 |
> places. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
For the record: we already did something similar for slot operators |
| 26 |
(no slotop vs :*), and I'm mostly following suit. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
Archives