On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:42:42AM -0500, Lubos Kardos wrote:
> And this is problem I shouldn't be able to unistall package testB because it
> is
> required by testA. This problem was created in commit 8674de47 on line 2108
> in lib/rpmdb.c. The last char of string name is cut off no matter if tha
atrequries test # Now without the last char
testA-1-1.x86_64
testA-1-1.x86_64
Lubos
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Schroeder"
> To: "Panu Matilainen"
> Cc: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 6:06:15 PM
> Subjec
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:18:19PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> With rpm 4.12 branched out and new development cycle just starting, this
> would be the prime time to land in such big new features and AFAICS this
> would make for a fine starting point for further refining. I'd say go ahead
> a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:02:15PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 09/11/2014 02:51 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > Ah, but I was hoping for a discussion of the syntax. Are you ok with
> > the enclosing the rich deps with ()? What about the op names, I'd
> > love to use & as 'and' and | as 'or' (
On 09/11/2014 03:51 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:18:19PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
I did find one "unexpected complication" [*] in the concept in my brief
testing, and in all likelihood there are more cases nobody thought of
etc... Just like we're still finding unc
On 09/11/2014 02:51 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> Ah, but I was hoping for a discussion of the syntax. Are you ok with
> the enclosing the rich deps with ()? What about the op names, I'd
> love to use & as 'and' and | as 'or' (which also makes it more like
> Debian), but I can't think of any good
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:18:19PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> I did find one "unexpected complication" [*] in the concept in my brief
> testing, and in all likelihood there are more cases nobody thought of
> etc... Just like we're still finding uncovered cases with the plain old
> provide/r
On 09/11/2014 02:18 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> [*] IF-dependencies have similar issues as reverse dependencies: one can
> break somebody elses dependencies by installing some seemingly unrelated
> package. Perhaps they should be limited to weak dependencies.
That's not exactly the same situation
On 09/09/2014 06:33 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Hi Panu et al,
Hi,
attached is an updated version of my rich dependencies patch.
I cleanup up the code a bit, now we have only one generic parser
instead of three specialized
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:51:12PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> Hi Panu et al,
>
> attached is an updated version of my rich dependencies patch.
> I cleanup up the code a bit, now we have only one generic parser
> instead of three specialized ones, and we use a callback function
> to do the n
Hi Panu et al,
attached is an updated version of my rich dependencies patch.
I cleanup up the code a bit, now we have only one generic parser
instead of three specialized ones, and we use a callback function
to do the needed work.
Supported are AND, OR, and IF, but IF is not allowd in Conflicts,
11 matches
Mail list logo
