rpm has never had support for alternation (as in A | B) through Requires:All dependencies are implictly && (except for triggers which are naturally ||).
What can serve instead of saying** *Requires: A | Bis having multiple provides and virtual dependencies, but
that quickly gets complicated.
There's no real reason why alternation could not be done. I looked
at related issues last May while implementing a compound &&so that one could naturally say** *Requires: foo.i386where the N.A form implies that i386 must match in the same package.
I implemented negated dependencies like** *Requires: !fooat the same time (Requires: !foo is formally analogous to Conflicts: foo,
there is a similar symmetry between Provides: and Obsoletes
Likely dependency ranges are more important to implement than having the ability to
specify alternate comparisons. I would have implemented last May but therewas no obvious consensus on what the syntax should be when I asked.
73 de Jeff
Rpm-list mailing list