Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-5-31 21:35 +0200:
> ...
>I would prefer to spell Jim's example as:
>
> 1.>=2.3
-1
--
Dieter
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-a
Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 30.05.2007, 17:29 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton:
How would you say that you wanted 1.2.3 or later and less than 1.3?
I think in that case you end up with a combination of >=1.2.3 && =1.2*
Hmn. Is that good o
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-5-30 15:30 -0400:
...
IMO, having every dependency look like:
project_name >=X.y.z
Maybe, we should put this into perspective:
What part of our time do we spend on the specification
of dependancies? 0.01 per cent?
True. However, the pr
Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
> With its naming rules, portage can use a wildcard:
>
> >=foo-1.*
I broke a rule there; wildcards are only supposed used following '=':
=foo-1.*
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mail
Jim Fulton wrote:
> I don't see how this helps one say that they want to depend on a minimum
> version of a major version. That is, how does it prevent dependencies
> like:
>
> foo >=1.0 <1.999
>
> I'm wondering how Gentoo got *that* right.
With its naming rules, portage can use a wildcard
