On Monday 07 May 2007 17:28:30 Roland McGrath wrote: > rpm itself ought to be changed too. Otherwise using rpm by hand to upgrade > elfutils-devel.i386 and elfutils-libs.x86_64 can leave > elfutils-devel.x86_64 an old one that failed to properly conflict with > upgrading elfutils-libs. That may have been the case a while ago, but now if you have a .so symlink in your -devel package, it will have a proper file level requirement on the arch specific -libs (or base) package that the symlink points to. If you have both elfutils-devel.x86_64 and elfutils-libs.x86_64 and elfutils-libs.i386 and tried to upgrade just elfutils-libs.x86_64 and elfutils-devel.i386 it would fail. elfutils-devel.x86_64 would have a file requires on the soname that is only provided by elfutils-libs.x86_64 of the matching version. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgp7yjsM3gRJB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
