Lets at least come up with a sane name. Even though dependencies are not
supposed to be human redable, i dont think it is not wise to make it
appear that it is in fact providing a file that doesnt exist.

Suggestions (i have no idea about any other limitations)
libdb-3.3.so-devel
libdb-3.3.so(devel)
etc...

Yes. good idea. I think this makes sense.


I don't mind using "(" ")", but it makes it less usable when querying from the commandline:

$ urpmq libdb-3.3.so(devel)
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `(

so you'll need to do it like this:

$ urpmq "libdb-3.3.so(devel)"
no package named libdb-3.3.so(devel)

Shall we make it "libdb-3.3.so-devel"? Any objections?

regards,

Stefan

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature



Reply via email to