Hi! On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 13:38:16 -0400, David Prévot wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:57:57PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > dpkg 1.17.11 and apt 1.0.7 recently implemented support for versioned > > provides. > […] > > This clearly needs an update. No proposed wording yet, sorry. > > Here is a simple one, stripping away the incorrect restriction. The > consideration about versioned virtual package may evolve with the dpkg > implementation, so I don’t believe it is worth it to document it in the > policy, at least not right now anyway.
I'm not sure what's supposed to evolve regarding versioned virtual packages? > From 2f94884f6b8bf9d46588906c17be7852b636567b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?UTF-8?q?David=20Pr=C3=A9vot?= <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:30:37 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] Drop now useless restrictions for Provides > > Closes: #761219 > --- > policy.sgml | 22 +--------------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml > index 4adee0b..c6f6677 100644 > --- a/policy.sgml > +++ b/policy.sgml > @@ -4746,7 +4746,7 @@ fi > </p> > > <p> > - All of the fields except for <tt>Provides</tt> may restrict > + All of the fields may restrict > their applicability to particular versions of each named > package. This is done in parentheses after each individual > package name; the parentheses should contain a relation from This part is wrong, as it implies that any relation is valid in a Provides field, but only ‘=’ relations are valid there. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
