Re: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled?

[Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]


Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:

> Christopher,
>
> Christopher Baines 写道：
>> We've had one for a while (itstool 2.0.6), and another has recently
>> been
>> introduced (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.

Great, thanks for fixing the sassc issue :)

>> Given there do seem to be ways of avoiding these ambiguous package
>> specifications, would it be helpful to have a lint warning that
>> identifies a package as being ambiguous (as it shares the name and
>> version with another package)?
>
> That's a good idea at the very least.  I don't think such duplication
> is ever justified.

Good good, I'll add it to my list of things to look at.

Thanks,

Chris

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 962 bytes --]