On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 14:15 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I've used versioned Conflicts: on other subpackages of my own package.
> This is necessary because versioned Requires: don't take arch into account,
> and so don't do everything right in multilib situations.
>
> Can the guidelines suggest how to address this?
>
> e.g. elfutils-libs has:
>
> Conflicts: elfutils-devel < %{version}-%{release}
> Conflicts: elfutils-devel > %{version}-%{release}
>
> Originally elfutils-devel just had:
>
> Requires: elfutils-libs = %{version}-%{release}
>
> But this doesn't make sure both upgrades happen on a biarch system.
> This is all because RPM doesn't support:
>
> Requires: elfutils-libs = %{version}-%{release}.%{arch}
>
> or some syntax with the semantics that implies.
>
> The only other way I know that might fix this is:
>
> Provides: elfutils-libs-%{arch} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> and:
>
> Requires: elfutils-libs-%{arch} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> But I have not tried this and the Conflicts: method is what I've been using
> for a few releases.
First of all, eww. Not because of elfutils, but rpm.
OK. I think the Provides/Requires suggestion above is a reasonable
workaround, but it might be something we can fix in yum, so it just dtrt
in biarch scenarios.
I summon Seth Vidal to prove me wrong. ;)
~spot
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
