"Paul R. Tagliamonte" writes:
> The language is not clear - I think Jakub covered my concerns clearly.
> Open to wording changes?
I consider this all non-normative, so I've just applied the following
change that will hopefully make it completely clear that the < and >
relations are no longer al
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 15:33:53 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >The relations allowed are ‘<<’, ‘<=’, ‘=’, ‘>=’ and ‘>>’ for strictly
> >earlier, earlier or equal, exactly equal, later or equal and strictly
> >later, respectively. The deprecated forms ‘<’ and ‘>’ were confusingly
> >used to mean earl
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:03:07PM +, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
> thanks
>
> For a while now, the (< ..) and (> ...) Dependency relation has been
> discouraged, and not allowed for new packages, since it's confusing (it
> actually means <= and >= not >
Hey Bill,
The language is not clear - I think Jakub covered my concerns clearly.
Open to wording changes?
Paul
Hi Paul!
* Paul Tagliamonte , 2016-03-02, 14:03:
For a while now, the (< ..) and (> ...) Dependency relation has been
discouraged, and not allowed for new packages, since it's confusing (it
actually means <= and >= not >> and <<).
There are only two packages left with this in their source ent
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
thanks
For a while now, the (< ..) and (> ...) Dependency relation has been
discouraged, and not allowed for new packages, since it's confusing (it
actually means <= and >= not >> and <<).
There are only two packages left with this in their source entry. I
6 matches
Mail list logo