On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:47:24 +0200 Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents... > I kinda love the prefix nature of the expressions which is consistent > and easier to parse. > Using infix only for versions and leaving all the rest prefix will > create abnormality. You know what? Let me break all your dreams. So, the way I see it: someone back in the ol' days thought: let's do version syntax different than everyone else, so we look cool. And let's use some smart name for it, even though it makes no sense in the context. And as all bad things in Gentoo do, suddenly many developers were thinking the same mistaken idea. So let's keep it short: 1. This is NOT *prefix notation*. This is some kind of sick weirdo prefix-suffix notation. 2. The suggested solution is *suffix*, NOT infix. Like everything else in the package dependency spec. 3. If everything else were 'prefix' like this, then package dependencies would look like >:[?app-foo/bar-1.2.3-1-gtk. 4. We are *not* comparing package name against the version. We are applying various restrictions to a dependency. 5. Dependency groups are actually using prefix notation. Still, I don't see any benefit from reversing package dependency specs and doing [gtk]3:>3.4.0-app-foo/bar. Though it's probably still better than what we're doing right now since we can at least sanely split version and category. So, sorry, the syntax does not make you look cool, it doesn't make sense and is inconsistent with everything else. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpfEmmojFARb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
