On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 23:21 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:28:08PM -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > > > 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. > > Comparing 2 packages which provides a versioned provides with the same name > is not comparing apple and oranges. If I have 2 packages who have > > Provides: foo = x.y-z > > and > > Provides: foo = A.b-c > > comparing x.y-z and A.b-c is comparing packages with virtual provides > with the same name. Using the version of the versioned virtual > provides may not be always right, but not more nor less than using > the shortest name. Agreed, there may be 2 packages which changed name > and still have a virtual provides with the old name, and in that case the > result is not right. However, I can't think about a case where using > the virtual provides version is worse than using the shortest name, > while there may be cases (like the one I presented above or the libnet) > in which it is the right thing to do. So, in short, there is no right thing to do b/c all of the issues run into another corner case. The correct behavior is to use packaging policy to remove packaging problems. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
