On 2019-12-06 Fri 02:15, Michał Górny wrote: > > I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original > > post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not > > just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency > > specifications (PMS 8.2.6). > > > > Perhaps the examples should also reflect this. > > > > I haven't tested anything but bare package names. Feel free to test > and let me know how much of the dep syntax works.
Speaking for pkgcheck, it supports the standard atom dep spec, i.e. anything that works in package.mask should also work in package.deprecated. However, note that a matching pkg found both in the base package.mask and package.deprecated won't be flagged as deprecated as it's currently assumed those are mutually exclusive entries (and such entries might be flagged at a later time). Tim
