Another round of testing calls. (redhat/openssh.spec)

[Jim Knoble]

Circa 2001-Nov-13 17:37:27 -0500 dixit James Ralston:

: On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, I wrote:
: > IIRC, it was jbj who stated that this:
: > 
: >     Requires: openssl
: >     Conflicts: openssl < 0.9.6
: > 
: > ...was preferred over this:
: > 
: >     Requires: openssl >= 0.9.6
: > 
: > But since I couldn't find anything to back up my recollection, I'll
: > go ask on rpm-list, just to make sure I'm remembering properly.
: 
: My recollection was correct.  Jeff's explanation was that it's better
: to describe the past (which is finite and is known) than to describe
: the future (which is infinite and unknown).

But either description above will need to be changed when a new version
of OpenSSL comes out that's incompatible with OpenSSL-0.9.6.

Both descriptions are effectively open-ended, and hence are equivalent.

There won't even be an effective difference between the two when a
new-and-incompatible OpenSSL arises; for both, you add a line to turn
them into a closed description of compatibility:

  Requires: openssl
  Conflicts: openssl < 0.9.6
  Conflicts: openssl >= 0.9.285

or:

  Requires: openssl >= 0.9.6
  Conflicts: openssl >= 0.9.285

IMNSHO, the point is moot.

-- 
jim knoble | jmknoble at pobox.com   | http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/
(GnuPG fingerprint: 31C4:8AAC:F24E:A70C:4000::BBF4:289F:EAA8:1381:1491)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/attachments/20011113/ba3f95aa/attachment.bin