On 27-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > On 26-Jul-2005, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > > > "Recommends: udev (>= 0.060-1)". > > > > How does this not express what you want to say? It recommends a > > minimum version of the package, and allows for no installation of > > the package. > > I pseudo-mathematic verbiage, I want > udev (>= 0.060-1) = no udev > udev (<< 0.060-1) > while the recommends line means > udev (>= 0.060-1) > no udev = udev (<< 0.060-1) > Am I clear enough about the difference? > > Is it better now?
Yes, I think I understand what you want.
You want something that is a non-imperative equivalent to
"Conflicts: udev (<< 0.060-1)"
i.e. one that wouldn't force the result, but would recommend it.
> And conflicting with udev (<< 0.060-1) isn't satisfactory either
In that case, I think you'll have to compromise on one of the two
options you don't like, since I'm pretty sure you can't
"anti-recommends" something with current deb format.
--
\ "For mad scientists who keep brains in jars, here's a tip: why |
`\ not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for freshness?" -- Jack |
_o__) Handey |
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
