Re: DEPENDS semantics (was: removing useless dependencies)

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 08:28:19PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > > > > If the possible dependencies are specified as an ordered list,
 > > > > then a reasonable expectation would be that the first one which is
 > > > > present is used.
 > > > > 
 > > > > So {foo>=5.00, bar>=8.00} if there is a foo>=5 present then bar
 > > > > would never be even checked
 > > >
 > > > [...]
 > > > assuming
 > > 
 > > See, there's the problem - you can't build special-case assumptions
 > > into a general-purpose construct like package patterns and expect to
 > > get sensible results.
 > 
 > Edgar already gave the reason why the current choice is sensible at last
 > for a subset. The rest just comes from the need of providing *some*
 > ordering. To go back to the topic at hand: stop using alternatives when
 > there is no good reason in first place.

Again: the pattern itself provides the most natural ordering. Anything
else violates the principle of least surprise.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost