|
From: | Tobias Geerinckx-Rice |
Subject: | Re: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled? |
Date: | Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:26:48 +0100 |
Christopher, Christopher Baines 写道:
We've had one for a while (itstool 2.0.6), and another has recently beenintroduced (sassc 3.6.1).
Thanks for noticing this!The sassc variant being visible was definitely a mistake. I added it as a local variable first and forgot to hide it after changing my mind. This is now fixed.
Given there do seem to be ways of avoiding these ambiguous packagespecifications, would it be helpful to have a lint warning thatidentifies a package as being ambiguous (as it shares the name andversion with another package)?
That's a good idea at the very least. I don't think such duplication is ever justified.
Kind regards, T G-R
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |