Semantic versioning in package managers of linux?

In any Linux distributions use package managers with support for semantic versioning?
To be able to specify constraints of type "~7.2.2" (>=7.2.2 <7.3.0.) for packages.

For example, in apt (ubuntu/debian) this is impossible and the best we can do is zahadite specific version.
June 7th 19 at 14:41
1 answer
June 7th 19 at 14:43
Apt is even possible. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#document...
Something like this:
Package: foo
Depends: bar (>= 7.2.2), bar (<< 7.3.0)
It is based on some packages from others, and no system of Lok package on a band. - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 14:46
well, you can create and deliver the package foo which is nothing but these dependencies. Then apt will refuse to install bar is not suitable under these conditions.

It is not clear why this would be necessary... - annie_Pagac commented on June 7th 19 at 14:49
is required for fixing package version (with possible update for patch versions), which is required for native applications.
For example php or elasticsearch.

Hack pack seems to be a crutch, but if it works that way, though terrible, but acceptable. - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 14:52
The creation of a metapackage fairly standard method.
What you do not like. ??
Xfce, xubuntu, or kubuntu lxde is also empty meta-packages that are easy draw all the rest of the stuff. - Sandra_Kautzer42 commented on June 7th 19 at 14:55
once you have your own app, what prevents him to zapaccelerate and specify your dependencies? - annie_Pagac commented on June 7th 19 at 14:58
extra support the essence after all. Of course, you can automate (for each dependent versions IN one package, not one at all), but in my opinion the way dirty.

it's for internal use, and there are certain requirements for reliability.
Now switch the atomic version, with the possibility of quick return.
Is an update of the package in apt atomic, without a split second of downtime? - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:01
on the contrary.
create additional functionality for the maintenance of the local requirements, which is performed on an existing and proven functionality, it is overkill.
so you can still a bunch of different options to distribute the package and then think how to resolve the resulting slyly*s "zaworotko guts". - Sandra_Kautzer42 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:04
,
which is performed on an existing and proven functionality
Ensuring the correct version range is less than 1% of all claims. - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:07
this can be accomplished with the existing functionality ?? - Sandra_Kautzer42 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:10
can connecting separate repositories for major branches (examples: nodejs, elasticsearch), or relegate the name of the version in the package name (examples: python2, php7.2).
Both ways is the treatment of the primitiveness of the apt, but spike look less than meta-packages. - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:13
Vaapche the great difference in interpretation between 2 and 3 a Python or pyhon is not a problem of package management system.
this is the problem of language development.
connection of repositories, third-party site is also the desire of the user, maintainers focus on the stability of the system, not ultrasweet content :)
however, these all of these zhelalki feasible at this level of functionality. so he's very versatile.

I think it is a understand that the introduction of additional functionality is the introduction of additional problems that need to be worked out to test and platforms.

the functionality of the dd command does not change the last 30 years, if not much more. And about the settings in General are silent. niche - used by all. - Sandra_Kautzer42 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:16
the great difference in interpretation between 2 and 3 a Python or pyhon is not a problem of package management system
This difference is regular and normal.
And if the package management system can't cope, then that's a problem.

this is the problem of language development.
Why? Read about semantic versioning. The complete lack of BC in a major version and a small degradation in the minor - this is normal.
But ignoring these properties is not normal.

however, these all of these zhelalki feasible at this level of functionality.
Note that you have offered me the option of the developer level (to collect metapackage). Although the goal - setting system, not development. - otho.Mraz23 commented on June 7th 19 at 15:19

Find more questions by tags LinuxPackage managersDebianUbuntu