On 6/15/07, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Syntax shouldn't repeat package name twice. It wouldn't make much sense
to use it with >=some-cat/foo-4.0
I was thinking about AND dependencies but the only reasonable examples I
could thing of were ranges of versions and thus didn't recogn
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:45:39 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Paludis allows users to do some-cat/foo[>=4.0&<4-3] and
> > some-cat/foo[=4.1|=4.2|=4.3] . The syntax isn't particularly pretty,
> > but it's cleaner than requiring duplication of the cat/pkg. Co
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Paludis allows users to do some-cat/foo[>=4.0&<4-3] and
> some-cat/foo[=4.1|=4.2|=4.3] . The syntax isn't particularly pretty,
> but it's cleaner than requiring duplication of the cat/pkg. Combined
> with :slot deps it should give you everything you need.
>
Seems not bad,
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> AND is already the implicit combinator. Thus simply listing both these
> atoms
> gives what you want:
>
> > =some-cat/foo-4.0
>
> Still a special syntax for ranges seems like a good idea. If only portage
> would not upgrade past such specifications (and downgrade t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> John R. Graham wrote:
>> What I'd really like to be able to code is a range with an AND operator,
>> something like this
>> ( && >=some-cat/foo-4.0
> AND is already the implicit combinator. Thus simply listing bot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John R. Graham wrote:
> What I'd really like to be able to code is a range with an AND operator,
> something like this
> ( && >=some-cat/foo-4.0 =some-cat/foo-4.0
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFGclz1p/VmCx0OL2wRAuxMAJY2sDo/FpEqRN3DPk3DkCGM5p++A
Hi!
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 6/15/07, John R. Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot
> > be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've
> > come across this, it's boiled down to
On 6/15/07, John R. Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot
be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've
come across this, it's boiled down to a range. For example, package
some-cat/foo has the followin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John R. Graham wrote:
> I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot
> be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've
> come across this, it's boiled down to a range. For example, package
> some-cat
I occasionally run across a package version dependency issue that cannot
be elegantly solved by the current dependency syntax. Every time I've
come across this, it's boiled down to a range. For example, package
some-cat/foo has the following versions in the tree
some-cat/foo-4.0.0-r2
som
10 matches
Mail list logo
