Updated python-happydoc to policy

[Harry Henry Gebel]

I updated python-happydoc to the proposed policy and uploaded it to
ftp-master.debian.org:/home/doko/www/python-uploads/ . Lintian marked 
'Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2)' as an error; so I used
'Depends: python (>= 2.1)' and 'Conflicts: python (>= 2.2)'

-- 
Harry Henry Gebel
West Dover Hundred, Delaware
GPG encrypted email gladly accepted. Key ID: B853FFFE
Fingerprint: 15A6 F58D AEED 5680 B41A  61FE 5A5F BB51 B853 FFFE

Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy

[Bastian Kleineidam]

Hi.
Harry Henry Gebel wrote:
'Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2)' as an error; so I used
'Depends: python (>= 2.1)' and 'Conflicts: python (>= 2.2)'
No, this is not equivalent! The Conflict means that I cannot install 
happydoc and python2.2 simultaneously, and this is not desired.

I know the lintian error, but this is a dpkg/apt/whatever bug, not a 
Python-Policy bug.

Bastian

Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 01:38:39PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Harry Henry Gebel wrote:
> > 'Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2)' as an error; so I used
> > 'Depends: python (>= 2.1)' and 'Conflicts: python (>= 2.2)'
> No, this is not equivalent! 

Uh, yes, they are equivalent.

> The Conflict means that I cannot install 
> happydoc and python2.2 simultaneously, and this is not desired.

Conflicts: python2.2 would've stopped you from doing this, but that's
not what's list above.

> I know the lintian error, but this is a dpkg/apt/whatever bug, not a 
> Python-Policy bug.

dpkg, apt, testing, etc, all work fine with depends of that form. It's
used by apache modules extensively, eg.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
  see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt



pgp3a5fSyuP1g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy

[Bastian Kleineidam]

Anthony Towns wrote:
Uh, yes, they are equivalent.
Ah, yes, given that the Python-Policy only allows one default
Python interpreter, not more than one.
Greetings, Bastian

Re: Updated python-happydoc to policy

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:46:19PM +0100, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, yes, they are equivalent.
> Ah, yes, given that the Python-Policy only allows one default
> Python interpreter, not more than one.

Given that dpkg allows only one package called "foo" to be installed at
once, and that Provides: are unversioned,

Depends: foo (>= bar), foo (<< baz)

and

Depends: foo (>= bar)
Conflicts: foo (>= baz)

are always the same.

This *could* conceivably change in the future if we get versioned provides
(and thus can have a package foo (1.2), and a package bar that 'Provides:
foo (= 2.0)', in which case a Depends: foo (>= 1.2), foo (<= 1.3), would
have different behaviour to a 'Conflicts: foo (>> 1.3)'. It could also
change depending on how "subarch" support is eventually implemented:
if you're allowed to have foo 2.0 (i386) installed at the same time as
foo 1.3 (ia64) on the same machine, eg.

But all that's bizarre arcana. At the moment it's true in all cases,
and it's likely to be the same as far as python's concerned forever.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
  see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt