On 02/01/17 16:51, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:11:43 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> PMS uses "package dependency specification", but that may be too long >> for the name of the field. How about "ebuilds to stabilise"? >> >> Ulrich > Reading "man 5 ebuild" > > Atom Bases > The base atom is just a full category/packagename. > > Examples: > >sys-apps/sed< > >sys-libs/zlib< > >net-misc/dhcp< > > Atom Versions > It is nice to be more specific and say that only certain > versions of atoms are acceptable. Note that versions must be combined > with a prefix (see below). Hence you may add a version number > as a postfix to the base. > > Examples: > sys-apps/sed->4.0.5< > sys-libs/zlib->1.1.4-r1< > net-misc/dhcp->3.0_p2< > > This makes me think that: > > 1. "Atom" is the term we use for a broad collection of dependency types. > 2. Atoms have parts. > 3. The parts we want are the "Base name" and "Version" elements. > 4. Thus, we want a succinct sub-specifier of atom. > > So, Can "atom base-versions" be a thing? > > Its much less "Omg" than having to write '$CAT/$PF' or "package dependency > specifications" > > Especially as the latter is also vague and doesn't actually solve the problem > of ambiguity > stating the specific narrow range required. > > "atom version" should work no? (minus pre-/suffix ofc)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
