On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:41:37 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:33:06PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Florian La Roche wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:50:35PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:15:19AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >>>>>> Ok so far, but foo+ also needs a "Provides: foo", and I wonder if is
> >>>>>> Provides: foo
> >>>>>> Conflicts: foo
> >>>>>> really is a good idea. And can/should we use versioned Provides:
> >>>>>> here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unless I am wrong, yum (rpm) won't care about versioned Provides:, and
> >>>>> replace foo+ with foo (I had such issues with libnet10/libnet).
> >
> > No, that's a different bug probably. If one of the virtual provides
> > was a real entity then you trigger another rpm bug that was tagged a
> > feature (check bugzilla for concurrent python of some sound libs from
> > ccrma for details, I don't have the bz# handy): It automatically
> > introduces silent Obsoletes ...
>
> FWIW, that particular "feature" is gone in rpm 4.4.2.1.
And packagers should still be very careful not to bring back "Provides:
foo = %version-%release" for compat-packages and alternatives. It would
only be a matter of time till the typical %{dist} mass-updates would
reintroduce problems for the old branches.
--
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
