Hi! On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 07:06:52 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > We now want to test whether dose3 supports them correctly. We think that it > *should* not be hard to do so because dose3 internally uses a cudf > representation of Debian dependencies and cudf already understands versioned > provides. > > Having a look at the test cases in the dpkg-tests git doesn't show any > surprises with respect to how they should be interpreted but I think I > remember > Guillem saying that there was some unintuitive trickery to be resolved for > this > feature?
Hmm, not sure exactly what comment you are referring to. It could have been related to the missing support in the perl side of the code (fixed in commit 5cc36d8e80)? I think the functional tests should be pretty comprehensive. > For example when reading dpkg commit 5bb02fe I saw a comment which explains > how versioned or unversioned dependencies should or should not be satisfied > by versioned or unversioned provides (in lib/dpkg/depcon.c for function > pkg_virtual_deppossi_satisfied) > > But I do not see these cases being tested for. You mean for Provides on relations different to equal versions? > Should I just use this comment to create some test cases for dose3 or are > there > some existing ones of dpkg that I'm missing? Depends on the above question I guess? :) > I suppose the comment is still an accurate description how it should work? Both the commit message and the one in the code should reflect the current behavior, yes. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
