rpm has never had support for alternation (as in A | B) through Requires:
All dependencies are implictly && (except for triggers which are naturally ||).
What can serve instead of saying
Requires: A | B
is having multiple provides and virtual dependencies, but
that quickly gets complicated.
There's no real reason why alternation could not be done. I looked
at related issues last May while implementing a compound &&
so that one could naturally say
Requires: foo.i386
where the N.A form implies that i386 must match in the same package.
I implemented negated dependencies like
Requires: !foo
at the same time (Requires: !foo is formally analogous to Conflicts: foo,
there is a similar symmetry between Provides: and Obsoletes:)
Likely dependency ranges are more important to implement than having the ability to
specify alternate comparisons. I would have implemented last May but there
was no obvious consensus on what the syntax should be when I asked.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
