On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:31:17 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, here is a counter proposal, following the KISS principle as much
> as possible:
>
> 1. Existing dependency syntax will be allowed indefinitely.
As long as I'm not forced to use that crap, I'm fine with it.
> 2. Version restrictions
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> ==, !=, <=, >= -- all consistent with one another. Same for ===,
> !==, <==, >==. Using some old ~ and = wouldn't fit that. The gain is
> greater than any benefit keeping old operator in a completely new
> syntax.
The gain is close to zero, if not
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:25:30 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > Most of your comments don't make sense if you are commenting on the
> > actual proposal. However, it seems that you immediately ignored the
> > core part of the proposal, and then co
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> Most of your comments don't make sense if you are commenting on the
> actual proposal. However, it seems that you immediately ignored the
> core part of the proposal, and then commented on stupidity of some
> distorted, imagined, half-ass proposal y
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:31:29 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Also note that the suggested set of operators is incomplete. There are
> "<== less than or equal to" and ">== greater than or equal to", but
> the corresponding ones for "less than" and "greater than" are missing.
> So this would remove p
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:19:16 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > The following revision-free version comparison operators are provided:
>
> > == exact version match, or prefix match (with *)
> > != exact version non-match, or prefix non-m
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>> === exact version+revision match
>> !== exact version+revision non-match
>> <== version+revision less or equal to match
>> >== version+revision greater or equal to match
> These are not necessary if the regular operators mat
On 11/10/2016 07:03 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>
> Only if you're misusing revisions. A package depends on a another
> package, not the ebuild revision of that package.
>
What if your package needs mine with SSL support, but mine was initially
committed without SSL support and -r1 adds it?
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > The following revision-free version comparison operators are provided:
>
> > == exact version match, or prefix match (with *)
> > != exact version non-match, or prefix non-match (wi
