On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:11:10PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 21/02/11 12:45, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > Injecting 0 is pointless. Better no version than useless 0. > > On the contrary, no version is equivalent to "any version" as far as rpm > is concerned, which is a problem waiting to happen and why rpmlint will > complain about it if you explicitly add an unversioned provide. Adding a > version of 0 means that any sane versioning scheme introduced by > upstream in the future will be "newer" than what you've already used. > > At this time there shouldn't be any versioned requires on these provides > since upstream doesn't version them, so having a version 0 provide > shouldn't break anything. > We talked about it already. In my opinion it's a bug in RPM dependency solver. It's cheating rpmlint and RPM. No more, no less. -- Petr
Attachment:
pgpDTMooFAah9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
