On 08/25/2015 05:54 PM, Pavel Odvody wrote: >> Technically a NOT operator should not be needed. So we are basically >> looking for real life examples where it would be really handy or even a >> pain if it was missing. What would you do with a NOT operator? >> > > Requires: (PkgA AND (PkgB IF NOT PkgC)
> But I'm really not sure whether it isn't just easier (correct) to handle > this through conflicts / virtual provide. Well, as Requires are (logically) all connected with an AND this is equivalent to: Requires: PkgA Requires: (PkgB IF NOT PkgC) And as IF is equivalent to OR NOT this is equivalent to Requires: PkgA Requires: (PkgB OR PkgC) That's why I am interested in *real world* examples where we can at least argue that writing it in a given way is more clear and the one without using NOT. >> [2] We are talking about Boolean operators here - not if statements. >> Those variants are identical to the forward and backward implication >> which are identical to (NOT . OR .) and (. OR NOT .) Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters _______________________________________________ Rpm-ecosystem mailing list Rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
