On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 18:21 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 06:30:33PM -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > > > it's a 'feature' of a sort. > > > > when dealing with equally as good different-named provides of a > > dependency yum does: > > > > 1. closest arch to the arch of the system > > 2. shortest name of the package > > > > it's #2 where libnet10 is being grabbed. > > Is it really a feature, or a bug not important enough to care about? > In my opinion, in case there are only versioned virtual provides, the > higher should be chosen. And when there are also unversionned virtual > provides and 2 or more versioned provides, the packages providing the > lowest virtual provides should not be choosen. > > More generally, does yum ignores the version of versioned virtual > provides? In that case there are certainly other similar issues, with > Conflict, Obsolete(?) or even versioned Requires? But maybe this is > because this opens too much issues, because it interacts with Requires, > Conflicts and Obsoletes? It's definitely not a bug - it is a requirement for equally satisfiable deps. comparing version numbers of 2 packages that don't have the same name doesn't do any good - you're comparing apples to oranges and since version numbers are arbitrary w/i any application you have no idea what you'd be getting. At least the way it is it's deterministic. If there are versioned deps and one of the packages satisfies it and the other does not then it uses the one that satisfies it. But if they both do it is impossible to judge b/t the two in a qualitative way. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
