[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format, first public draft for commenting (Discussion #2374)

[Daniel Alley]

> Yup. The dependency is tracking the use of syntax that will create a package that won't work quite right with versions of rpm before 3.0.3.

...

>Not a bug. The dependency is written with <= so that the range is closed, as >= would make the implicit promise "forever". Meanwhile, since the matching capability is `Provides: rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1` there's only a single point covered by the overlapping dependency ranges.

It makes some sense, but it's definitely counterintuitive.  The first statement isn't entirely true because of the "or equals".  The second statement almost doesn't matter, because rpm presents the exact versions anyway.  And if RPM presents them as a list of capabilities, then why not just match on the capabilities rather than dragging version numbers into it?

I guess to make error messages more informative -- assuming that is taken advantage of.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-8073170
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2374/comments/8073170 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20240109/03179742/attachment-0001.html>