Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

"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

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

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

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

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

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

Hey Bill, The language is not clear - I think Jakub covered my concerns clearly. Open to wording changes? Paul

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

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

Bug#816515: Disallow (< ...) and (> ...) package relations

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.