Jesse Keating wrote:
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.
Only if the soname changed, otherwise rpm will get it wrong. (been there
accidently done that).
This whole multilib stuff isn't pretty ideally rpm would be fixed so that all
packages would automaticly provide not only %{name} = %{version-%{release}, but
also %{name} = %{version-%{release}.%{arch}
And then the Requires for -devel's would get the %{arch} added too, or we could
add both the provides and the requires manually for all packages with a -devel sub.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
the Conflicts uee in elflib is evil and should be abolished
--
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
