On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq....@gmail.com> wrote: > I should point out that writing the attached > message (and sending from the wrong e-mail address) has instantly > led to a different -- and perhaps more natural -- syntax like > > Requires: set(libfoo.so.1) >= whatever
Hello, Set-versions are just that - versions. One must arguably think of them in terms of VERSIONS. If you need a library, it is a legitimate question to ask which version you need. If you think you need the version at least 1.0, there's a good question: why the heck you think you need the version at least 1.0 (and whether 2.0 would still fit). With set-versions, things get straightforward: you need at least a version which provides <foo, bar, baz> API symbols - that's much better a description of a library than a god-damn arbitrary number. There are some philosophical implications of introducing set-versions, in particular, whether it can be extended to describe prototypes and calling conventions (e.g. the number of arguments which must be passed to a function). This is why I might seem reluctant to participate in discussions. I'm thinking! (And perhaps I'm arrogant.) > for set:versions, and for the generalization (for writing strict regression > tests, > its mostly useless in packaging because there is no mapping that specifies > how the mixed DEB <-> RPM version comparison might be done "naturally") > > Requires: deb(foo) >= E:V-R > Requires: rpm(foo) >= E:V-R > > The precedent for foo(bar) name spacing in RPM dependencies with > the above syntax is already widely deployed although entirely > de facto. > > Sure would be nice _NOT_ to have to consider "Have it your own way!" > competing syntaxes like > Requires: libfoo.so.1 >= set:whatever > and > Requires: set(libfoo.so.1) >= whatever ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
