"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> a) you declare a relation on a package more than once i.e. Depends: foo, foo
> (<< 2.0). Note this check assumes that '|' relations are sane, so Depends:
> foo
> | bar | baz, foo is ok.
This reminds me.
The policy does not seem to
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:30:48AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:36:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > How is that sane? I'm parsing that as "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo",
> > which is the same as "(bar OR baz) AND foo", right?
>
> Err, "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:36:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> How is that sane? I'm parsing that as "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo",
> which is the same as "(bar OR baz) AND foo", right?
Err, "(foo OR bar OR baz) AND foo" != "(bar or baz) AND foo",
because it can also be "foo AND foo" (= "foo"
On 26-Sep-2001 Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 25-Sep-01, 17:56 (CDT), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a) you declare a relation on a package more than once i.e. Depends:
>> foo, foo (<< 2.0). Note this check assumes that '|' relations are
>> sane, so Depends: foo | bar | baz, foo i
Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 25-Sep-01, 17:56 (CDT), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a) you declare a relation on a package more than once i.e. Depends:
> > foo, foo (<< 2.0). Note this check assumes that '|' relations are
> > sane, so Depends: foo | bar | baz, foo is ok.
>
>
On 25-Sep-01, 17:56 (CDT), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) you declare a relation on a package more than once i.e. Depends:
> foo, foo (<< 2.0). Note this check assumes that '|' relations are
> sane, so Depends: foo | bar | baz, foo is ok.
How is that sane? I'm parsing that as
6 matches
Mail list logo
