(Sorry Daniel for first sending this e-mail to you only by mistake.) Hi,
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:19:39AM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > > > > > > So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried > > > > to specify it with "Conflicts: foo (>> A), foo (<< B)" but, as I > > > > feared, > > > > it does not work since it now conflicts both with all versions >> A and > > > > with all versions << B (as A << B, that means all versions). > > > > > > How about "Depends: foo (<< A) | foo (>> B)"? > > > > No, my package does not depend in any way on foo. Depending on foo only > > to prevent a few specific versions of foo to be installed would be evil, > > AFAICS... > > The best extant solution to this is just to Conflicts: foo (<= B). > Forcing an upgrade isn't such a bad thing... Well, that depends. For example, if testing as a version << A of foo, and we are getting close to a release, conflicting with that version for no good reason would be somewhat broken. (That's roughly the current situation with foo=dvb-dev, A=1.0.0, B=1.0.1 and my package=em8300-headers.) Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned relationships. If there is no good reason, I might try to implement such a thing and provide it to the maintainers of dpkg... Regards, Nicolas