On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:19:19PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes. I thought it applied to regular conflicts, now I see in the document there are some exceptions allowed. > 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. That might be a nice createrepo feature to add such conflicts. > 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? Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean the explicit conflicts between current versions of packages. I.e. the thing that makes the complexity exponential. For example: package A: depends on X package B: conflicts with D package C: provides X package D: provides X yum install A B fails here as it tries to install A B D. The solution is to install A B C. -- Miroslav Lichvar -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
