On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>...
> I guess I am not the only one who does not understand the consequences
> of versionend provides, and what they mean exaxtly. Part of the problem
> is of course that policy is still at the state of unversionend provides
> only. I think it would be useful for many people in the project if the
> consequences of versionend provides could be documented somewhere. For
> instance on the dpkg wiki pages (and announcing this on debian-devel),
> until this finds its way into policy. For instance, here are some questions
> I have been asking myself:
>
> 1) policy is obviously outdated when saying that a versionend dependency (or
> conflict) only concerns relations to real packages, not virtual ones.
> Assume we have:
>
> Package: a
> Version: 42
>
> Package: b
> Version: 73
> Provides: a (=42)
>
> Certainly, a dependency on a (=42) can be satisfied by any of these two?
>
> 2) Assume we have:
>
> Package: a
> Depends: v (=1)
>
> Package: b
> Provides: v
>
> Am I right that a cannot be installed, as b does not satisfy its
> dependency?
>
> 3) Assume we have
>
> Package: a
> Depends: v
>
> Package: b
> Provides: v (=1)
>
> That one seems easy: b satisfies the dependency of a on v, so a can be
> installed?
>
> 4)
>
> Package: a
> Conflicts: v
>
> Package: b
> Provides: v (=1)
>
> Are a and b in conflict?
>
> 5)
>
> Package: a
> Conflicts: v (=1)
>
> Package: b
> Provides: v
>
> I guess there is no conflict ?
6)
Package: a
Depends: p (>= 1), p (<< 2)
Package: b
Provides: p (=1)
Package: c
Provides: p (=2)
When a and b are installed, can c be installed without removing a?
> Cheeers -Ralf.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
