On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Michael Schaller wrote: > Having two styles explains totally why I'm confused. ^^ > Some more questions/comments regarding this... > > > What do you mean by "it uses the style everyone else uses"? > Isn't Debian-style THE common denominator? If not, do you have a > link where I can read more about the "style everyone else uses"? > Maybe this link should be added to the documentation as background > information.
Outside the Debian world, the Debian style is not used. The style used here is just the common ASCII mathematical notation. > > > A comp_type_deb does sound like a good idea but it would need to be > properly documented so that people understand the difference. I also > think that this shouldn't be in apt_pkg.Dependency but rather in > apt.package.BaseDependency. What do you think? No. It would have to be in both. > > > IMHO the documentation for apt_pkg.Version.comp_type needs fixing > because it lists ">>" and "==" albeit apt_pkg never uses ">>", "<<" > or "==". It only uses ['', '>=', '<=', '=', '<', '>'] as you can see > in my previous post. Fixed. And it also uses !=, apt's source code tells me. > > > IMHO the documentation for apt.package.BaseDependency needs fixing > because it lists "==" albeit apt never uses "==". It only uses ['', > '>=', '<=', '=', '<', '>'] as you can see in my previous post. > Furthermore it also allows or better said should be able to handle > "<<" , ">>" and "==" (via apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr) but > "<<" and ">>" aren't listed in the docstring.i Fixed. > > > Can it be that apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr has a bug? > Shouldn't __ne__ only use __ne__ calls? > If you ask me then: > def __ne__(self, other): > return str.__eq__(self, other) and str.__ne__(2 * self, other) > > should be: > def __ne__(self, other): > return str.__ne__(self, other) and str.__ne__(2 * self, other) > > > Am I the only one who thinks that apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr > is a really weird helper? Why not just use a dict and translate all > possible strings to the expected strings? That would IMHO increase > the readability and would only make the expected strings available. I don't know. I did not write IIRC. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Please do not top-post if possible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
