On Tuesday 10 March 2009 13:52:03 James Antill wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 10:33 +0000, Bill Crawford wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 March 2009 07:44:18 Panu Matilainen wrote: > > ... > > > > > Requires: > > > audit-libs = 1.7.12-2.fc11 > > > libaudit.so.0()(64bit) > > > libauparse.so.0()(64bit) > > > > > > The soname dependencies point to the correct version of audit-libs > > > already, just the manual dep on audit-libs (to force exact version > > > match) is satisfied with any arch. > > > > If this is a case of "we need to know the libraries are new enough", > > shouldn't it actually be Conflicts: audit-libs < .... ? > > I assume you don't want to upgrade audit-libs without updating the > above package too, so just a conflict with older versions isn't enough. Actually, that shouldn't in theory be a problem at all. The issue is, I think, that it really needs to be "I require exactly this major version, and at least this minor version", if traditional approaches to library ABI compatability are taken. In any case, the requirement really does need to be on the same arch. Perhaps what rpm (and yum, etc) really need is a way of specifying, for a dependency on a library version v: major(v) == x minor(v) > y || minor(v) == y && micro(v) >= z -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
