Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-08 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:03:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:46:08AM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned relationships.

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-07 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:46:08AM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: Moreover, that does not answer to my real question: is there a good reason not to implement such an extended syntax for versionned relationships. Probably not; but there needs to be a good reason to do it. It has to be

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsker
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, One package of mine needs to conflict with a few consecutive versions of a package. Let's say that the package foo introduced a feature that conflicts with my package in version A and removed it in version B. So I'd like my package to

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:19:39AM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried to specify it with Conflicts: foo ( A), foo ( B) but, as I feared, it does not work since it now conflicts both with all versions A and

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:19:39AM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried to specify it with Conflicts: foo ( A), foo ( B) but, as I feared,

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Nicolas Boullis
(Sorry Daniel for first sending this e-mail to you only by mistake.) Hi, On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Nicolas Boullis wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:19:39AM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:

Re: A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-03 Thread Brian May
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: The best extant solution to this is just to Conflicts: foo (= B). Forcing an upgrade isn't such a bad thing... It could be a bad thing if it means upgrading a stable package to unstable. The stable version of the package might

A new way to specify versionned dependencies may be needed

2003-10-02 Thread Nicolas Boullis
Hi, One package of mine needs to conflict with a few consecutive versions of a package. Let's say that the package foo introduced a feature that conflicts with my package in version A and removed it in version B. So I'd like my package to conflict with versions A to B of foo. I tried to