Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-08 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:03:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:46:08AM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > > Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good > > reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned > > relationships. >

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-07 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:46:08AM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good > reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned > relationships. Probably not; but there needs to be a good reason to do it. It has to be imple

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Brian May
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > The best extant solution to this is just to Conflicts: foo (<= B). > Forcing an upgrade isn't such a bad thing... It could be a bad thing if it means upgrading a stable package to unstable. The stable version of the package mig

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Nicolas Boullis
(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:

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
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, a

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Nicolas Boullis
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 versio

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari MannsÃker
Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > One package of mine needs to conflict with a few consecutive versions > of a package. Let's say that the package foo introduced a feature that > conflicts with my package in version A and removed it in version B. > > So I'd like my package to

A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-02 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, One package of mine needs to conflict with a few consecutive versions of a package. Let's say that the package foo introduced a feature that conflicts with my package in version A and removed it in version B. So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried to specif