On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of </<= Obsoletes, but unfortunately we > have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) > or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new > package. > > Problem categories (in following text by "never" I mean latest N-2 releases): > > * Package/SubPackage was never built in Fedora > Package "python" has "Obsoletes: python2" which was never built -> > drop Obsoletes > SubPackage "qpid-proton-c" of "qpid-proton" has "Obsoletes: > qpid-proton" which was not the package for long time -> drop Obsoletes > > * Package replacement > Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version > from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2 > storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces udisks2, but latter is > still not retired. > Right, the official plan on this is to retire udisks2 immediately prior to Beta Freeze[1] That said, the Obsoletes *should* be versioned. That way if we opted down the line to re-add it (or change storaged's name, etc.) it could be done. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LDF3UVM65RRF4WWF243RWQNLEQKFQJLQ/#LDF3UVM65RRF4WWF243RWQNLEQKFQJLQ > * Weird obsoletes (broken) > "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686". > Basically it will not obsolete anything because it's threated as > package name (and we definitely don't have such package name). > This definitely looks odd... Robbie?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
