Having two styles explains totally why I'm confused. ^^
Some more questions/comments regarding this...
What do you mean by "it uses the style everyone else uses"?
Isn't Debian-style THE common denominator? If not, do you have a link
where I can read more about the "style everyone else uses"?
Maybe this link should be added to the documentation as background
information.
A comp_type_deb does sound like a good idea but it would need to be
properly documented so that people understand the difference. I also
think that this shouldn't be in apt_pkg.Dependency but rather in
apt.package.BaseDependency. What do you think?
IMHO the documentation for apt_pkg.Version.comp_type needs fixing
because it lists ">>" and "==" albeit apt_pkg never uses ">>", "<<" or
"==". It only uses ['', '>=', '<=', '=', '<', '>'] as you can see in my
previous post.
IMHO the documentation for apt.package.BaseDependency needs fixing
because it lists "==" albeit apt never uses "==". It only uses ['',
'>=', '<=', '=', '<', '>'] as you can see in my previous post.
Furthermore it also allows or better said should be able to handle "<<"
, ">>" and "==" (via apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr) but "<<" and
">>" aren't listed in the docstring.
Can it be that apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr has a bug? Shouldn't
__ne__ only use __ne__ calls?
If you ask me then:
def __ne__(self, other):
return str.__eq__(self, other) and str.__ne__(2 * self, other)
should be:
def __ne__(self, other):
return str.__ne__(self, other) and str.__ne__(2 * self, other)
Am I the only one who thinks that apt.package.BaseDependency.__dstr is a
really weird helper? Why not just use a dict and translate all possible
strings to the expected strings? That would IMHO increase the
readability and would only make the expected strings available.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org