Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thursday 25 June 2009, James Antill wrote: >> Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> writes: >> > Hmm, I don't understand, could you elaborate/rephrase? >> > >> > "foo >=" without a version doesn't make sense to me, for example rpmbuild >> > doesn't let "Requires: foo >=" pass. Is it actually possible to have >> > such relations that have name, the = >= and friends bits, but no version >> > in packages? >> >> If it's not possible to do, then surely having bad output for those >> impossible cases isn't a problem?:) > > Well, the current implementation already tries to (and does) avoid producing > bad output (e.g. "foo 1.0") if someone passes a version but no flags to it. I > just found it inconsistent that it makes such a special case for flags but not > version. This is different, if there is no flag rangeCompare() ignores the evr data. If there is a flag, rangeCompare() replaces any missing evr info. with the evr data from the provider. > Or if you don't like that, leave things as > is but maybe document the expected behaviour of the function? ;) Any patches for docstrings will almost certainly be applied -- back at ya ;). -- James Antill -- james@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
