Closed #715.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/715#event-3096720906___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
As pointed out by @jasontibbitts we really don't want to go down this rabbit
whole. I am closing this - even if this is not great. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-manage
Since what you really want is a significantly different total ordering, you
really need a different set of binary relations. I certainly don't want to be
the one to propose `<~`, `<=~, `>~`, and `>=~`. Plus, for completeness, I
guess you'd need a comparison operator `=~`. That would all be...
whoops, wrong ticlket. For this one is yes -- converting upstream dependency
data into the RPM one... which works fine except for this small thingy.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-soft
For this specific one is to be used in `%autosetup` and some more places in
spec. Because default %name-%version doesn't work for pre-release packages.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-s
So what's the actual use-case here? Converting upstream dependency tracking
data to rpm?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/715#issuecomment-498254307___
@pmatilai yeah, this is somewhat similar. Unfortunately I don't know how we
could nicely express both.
@ffesti yeah, the only problem is that semver.org says you can have versions
like `2.0.0beta` which would be translated into `2.0.0beta` in RPM. Not
saying it is horrible or people sho
I guess there is no real way around using `Requires: (foo >= 1.0.0 with foo <
2.0.0~)`. Yes, this is kinda annoying.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/715#i
To rephrase a bit, I can see why you'd sometimes want 2.0.0~alpha to be
considered 2.0.0, but also that in other cases not, and rpm cannot magically
know which one you want for a particular case. It'd be nice if there was a way
to explicitly express both cases.
This sort of reminds me of this (
Err, no. If its sorts lower than 2.0.0 then it must match the < 2.0.0
dependency, anything else would be a mess that nobody will understand.
How exactly is this a problem for you?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on Git
In Rust packaging we've found issue that we have `Requires: (foo >= 1.0.0 with
foo < 2.0.0)` and package with version `2.0.0~alpha` is actually is matching
this range. I think it should be treated for dependency check purpose.
/cc @ffesti
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed t
11 matches
Mail list logo
