test # Now without the last char
testA-1-1.x86_64
testA-1-1.x86_64
Lubos
- Original Message -
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
To: Panu Matilainen pmati...@redhat.com
Cc: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 6:06:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC
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
and
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 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 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
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 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
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' (which
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 needed
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
