Hi folks, On 01/15/2016 05:07 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Whenever discussions about new dependency syntax come up I like to remind > people of all the time (about six years now) and effort it took to get the > build profile syntax [1] accepted by the archive, supported by all tools and > to > sufficiently discuss this with everybody involved to get general agreement > that > this is necessary and we're doing it the right way. And this is not even over > yet as that syntax has to be documented in policy as well! Plus, we are only > talking about Build-Depends syntax here. I'd assume that there are even more > tools that handle binary package Depends syntax that the 19 that handle source > package dependency syntax. > > In this case, the desired effect can be achieved using existing elements of > the > dependency syntax and without any unreadable version quirks. A new syntax > would > *only* be acceptable if there were hundreds if not thousands of packages that > would benefit from an easier way to express such a conditional and in which > case having all these meta-packages I proposed as a solution above would > become > infeasible. >
I understand that the existing package dependency options are already very complex, especially if all the "Conflicts", "Recommends" and "Provides" options are taken into account. > Thanks! > Thanx very much to all for your feedback. Keep on your good work Harri
