From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB354138334 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EBF05E0885; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A006AE081B for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 2274) id 8CC0F34D82E; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:35:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 02:35:54 -0500 From: Tim Harder To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] package.deprecated: Create initial template Message-ID: <20191206073554.GA5589@sumac.radhermit.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20191205160957.576971-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <6250289d8c020e14039df5f54a0099d7fdd957e4.camel@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6250289d8c020e14039df5f54a0099d7fdd957e4.camel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Archives-Salt: e03e3b31-aa9c-4de3-976f-e0e5b5302a78 X-Archives-Hash: 73e3170842eb246ebc815e7ccbaf10d8 On 2019-12-06 Fri 02:15, Michał Górny wrote: > > I think that is not an apt description in my understanding of your original > > post on the matter. The package.deprecated file is supposed to contain not > > just (qualified) package names, but some sort of package dependency > > specifications (PMS 8.2.6). > > > > Perhaps the examples should also reflect this. > > > > I haven't tested anything but bare package names. Feel free to test > and let me know how much of the dep syntax works. Speaking for pkgcheck, it supports the standard atom dep spec, i.e. anything that works in package.mask should also work in package.deprecated. However, note that a matching pkg found both in the base package.mask and package.deprecated won't be flagged as deprecated as it's currently assumed those are mutually exclusive entries (and such entries might be flagged at a later time). Tim