[gentoo-dev] Re: Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

[Duncan]

konsolebox posted on Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:09:03 +0800 as excerpted:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>> Sorry, but I don't get it. How would these be different from the
>> existing "=pkg-1.0.2a*" and "=pkg-1.0.2*"?
> 
> Because they could also match pkg-1.0.2aa (not sure if it's still valid
> atom) and pkg-1.0.20 respectively.

What about combining (positive) deps and blockers, deping on =pkg-1.0.2a* 
and blocking >=pkg-1.0.2b ?  Wouldn't that resolve the unintended matches?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request to add ~> atom prefix operator on Portage.

[konsolebox]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> konsolebox posted on Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:09:03 +0800 as excerpted:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>>> Sorry, but I don't get it. How would these be different from the
>>> existing "=pkg-1.0.2a*" and "=pkg-1.0.2*"?
>>
>> Because they could also match pkg-1.0.2aa (not sure if it's still valid
>> atom) and pkg-1.0.20 respectively.
>
> What about combining (positive) deps and blockers, deping on =pkg-1.0.2a*
> and blocking >=pkg-1.0.2b ?  Wouldn't that resolve the unintended matches?

Possible workaround but all I'd say is that it adds complexity or
noise.  We also do other things besides blocking.  Sometimes we just
call dependencies, sometimes we just apply or disable flags - such are
the cases where doing the opposite action to excluded versions is not
always applicable.