Adam Williamson wrote: > http://tirfa.com/current-state-of-depcheck-and-paths-forward.html Sigh. This shows that once again a purported replacement for a working piece of software was deployed before it was able to perform the allegedly replaced tool's most important task, even though the problem was known to the replacement's developers. We really should not accept this kind of known regressions. > I'm sort-of volunteered to write the approach I suggested in a comment > as a new test, but it's going to have to wait until at least post-f21. Your approach indeed makes sense. It will not cause issues caused by added Conflicts or the like, but at least it catches the common case. (Just make sure you also consider Obsoleted packages as "the old package" whose Provides will no longer be available.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
