On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Florian Festi wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in place,
too?
I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change is
A LOT like a package rename.
I like to disagree. I really see no reason why an obsolete should be needed
here. Sure there is information loss when switching to noarch and back but an
obsolete can't fix this.
I thought I had fixed the multilib behavior of yum some time ago especially
for such arch changing cases and there should be test cases covering that.
Looks like I need to have a look into it again.
It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
foo-1.1.noarch
foo-1.0.x86_64
foo-1.0.i386
Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?
We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arch as the running system. And
then the arch NEAREST to the running arch.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
