On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:36:01 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Spura (tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> > > If the required updates are due to version checks in the
> > > extensions, it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency
> > > generator that checks these and outputs the appropriate
> > > Requires/Conflicts lines, such that this could be easily caught
> > > by AutoQA.
> >
> > Generally speaking, could be possible (didn't look at other
> > extensions). I'll try to script somthing for the requires generation
> > like /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh. But it won't be possible to easily
> > generalize requires, it would be better to have Conflicts:
> > <!-- Firefox -->
> > <em:targetApplication>
> > <Description>
> > <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
> > <em:minVersion>3.0</em:minVersion>
> > <em:maxVersion>10.0a1</em:maxVersion>
> > </Description>
> > </em:targetApplication>
> > There isn't only firefox in that file, there are many browsers that
> > aren't available in fedora, so R: Flock >= 0.4 and R: Flock <= 2.0.*
> > would be never fulfilled --> Choosing to conflict with all other
> > versions.
> > Would that be ok/sane?
>
> You'd want:
>
> Requires: firefox >= 3.0
> Conflicts: firefox > 10.0a1
>
> (You could do the first one as a conflicts, too, but since the package
> is already going to have a Requires: on firefox, might as well just
> version it.)
The automatic requires proposed in bug #745038, does this:
Requires: firefox >= 3.0
Requires: firefox <= 10.0a1
and seems to work fine here so far. When a newer firefox-11.0 is
installed, yum should complain about it, I guess.
-Tom
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
