On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:41 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
Right, I meant conflicts between latest versions of packages in
all repositories.
We have that too, for the packages that explicitly mark themselves as
conflicting. We don't catch unmarked file conflicts until we've
downloaded and attempt to install, and then it's caught by rpm. Lots of
multilib file coloring magic here.
Ok, I thought we have a policy that forbids it. So there is actually a
good reason why it should be supported by yum.
We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes.
If you have two pkgs and you know foo owns a file that bar also owns - you
are obligated to put an explicit conflict in place.
The reason why yum doesn't detect them is b/c the metadata about files
does not include color and checksum (mainly b/c if we did include that in
the filelists metadata it would be outrageously large) If the satsolver is
going to detect those then it will have to be AFTER it downloads all the
rpms.
Do you see what I mean?
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
