On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 02:15:24PM -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}
I would consider that a neccessary evil. BTW rpm itself needs
BuildConflicts against rpm-devel != self, as otherwise the build picks
up the wrong rpm headers. Thank god that modern packaging happens in
minimal spawned build environments otherwise we would need
BuildConflicts all over the map.
> Lines, give me guidance!
I think what you do qualifies as fine to deal with it that way. And
BTW who is "Lines"? :)
The lack of arch in setting up dependencies has been an often topic on
rpm devel lists, and AFAIK the rpm god's version even has support for
it by now, but AFAIK2 it breaks all backward compatibility. But maybe this
breakage is worth while. Probably best discussed on rpm-maint lists.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpspXM8EKUGz.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
