Re: [PATCH] Make unversioned satisfy everything in rangeCompare() also with flag=0

Ville Skyttä <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thursday 25 June 2009, James Antill wrote:
>> Ville Skyttä <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected]