Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > On 2007/03/25, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > =app-dicts/aspell-en-0.5* > > > --- > > > app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.0 > > > app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.1 > > > > you'd have to add more atoms to match 0.51.0, 0.52.1, 0.53.3, et

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On 2007/03/25, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > =app-dicts/aspell-en-0.5* > > --- > > app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.0 > > app-dicts/aspell-en-0.51.1 > > you'd have to add more atoms to match 0.51.0, 0.52.1, 0.53.3, etc... Yes and no... On one hand, only 0.51.{0,1} exist atm, so a dep on

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > My suggestion is only about dropping the substring-match semantics, to > replace it with something more restrictive, and that, it's doable for > EAPI=0 if decided now. i'd be on the fence about that ... i feel like some of your examples

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
On 2007/03/25, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > =foo/bar-1.2.* has never been valid and still isnt valid in current > portage ... i dont see a reason to force it in for EAPI=0 considering > we've gotten by so far without it being a big deal Sure. I've probably not been clear, i was n

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > While reading tosay's PMS draft, i've seen the following (§9.2.1), which > > reminded me this old discussion: > > = Exactly equal to the specified version. Special exception: if the > >version specified has an asterisk immediately fol

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Atom matching behavior

2007-03-25 Thread Thomas de Grenier de Latour
While reading tosay's PMS draft, i've seen the following (§9.2.1), which reminded me this old discussion: > = Exactly equal to the specified version. Special exception: if the >version specified has an asterisk immediately following it, a string >prefix comparison is used instead. When an as

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [SoC] Idea for emerge

2007-03-25 Thread Alec Warner
>> and I'd assume users might get rather confused to answer questions >> that are then thrown away later. > I don't unterstand what do you mean by that... > It's a chicken and egg problem. Portage's job is to examine your systems configuration (key here is USE flags) and the calculate dependences