[fink-core] Re: [Fink-devel] Proposal: New percent-expansion for full version (Was: HEAD buildlocks (and maybe others?) don't handle epoch)

[Chris Z. <be...@ma...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Feb 27, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:

> On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:11 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
>> So either there's a bug in get_depends (either its implementation or
>> how it is being called in this code snippet) or there's a bug in your
>> .info file (missing %e in the Depends line).
>
> It's a bug in the .info file. The SplitOffs had "Depends: %N (= %v-% 
> r)". But now that there's an epoch, that should be "Depends: %N (= % 
> e:%v-%r)".
>
>
> I propose that we add a %V expansion for full version, so we can  
> just write (= %V) and forget about whether or not an epoch is  
> needed. Any objections?

Sounds ok... from a fink standpoint, though, it makes sense to have  
the epoch as part of %v, but from the Source line is makes sense to  
have it separate...

- -chris zubrzycki
- - --
PGP public key: http://homepage.mac.com/beren/publickey.txt
ID: 0xA2ABC070 Fprint: 26B0 BA6B A409 FA83 42B3  1688 FBF9 8232 A2AB  
C070
========================================================
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Please sign reply-http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkQDS84ACgkQ+/mCMqKrwHBnfgCcDsr9JKUSLPmJMp7wsymXJ08V
43MAoITx3mxQRU/KXcbfWri7v+Ksvfda
=/+LZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----