[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#15108: 24.3.50; Package dependency documentation
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#15108: 24.3.50; Package dependency documentation |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:57:53 -0700 (PDT) |
> > The values `foo', `(foo)' and `((foo))' all cause an error to be
> > signaled by `package-buffer-info'. This seems to me that there is no
> > "possibly" about it.
>
> Indeed a lot of the code assumes that there's a version number in there,
> but some of the code does try to handle a nil value as well.
> I think it would be desirable to make it possible to leave the version
> number unspecified.
+1; a BIG +1.
You can use `Package Requires ((foo "0"))' as a workaround, but it's
silly that you have to do that. If a library is not versioned, or if
for some reason any version of it will do for the package that requires
it, it should be possible to use just `Package Requires ((foo))'.
Furthermore, if no library is required, it should be possible to omit
a `Package-Requires' altogether - that should be equivalent to
`Package-Requires ()'.
bug#15108: More flexible package dependency specification, Tom Willemse, 2013/08/16