On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >>>> >>>> * 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? >> >> This is part of something I was requested to add (from the RHEL >> packaging where we have lines like `Obsoletes: >> krb5-server-1.11.3-49.el7.i686`, added by a previous maintainer) wherein >> the 64-bit versions of packages need to obsolete the 32-bit versions >> because we run into problems if both are installed. >> >> If what's in the spec file is not the correct way to accomplish that, >> what is? I am unable to find documentation for any of this. >> > > Is that because some machines at one point did have both installed? That's kind > of a mess. I'd recommend taking that discussion to > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and see what they recommend. I think the issue here is just that the syntax is wrong. Instead of what's right now, Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.11.3-49.el7.i686 it should be: Obsoletes: krb5-server <= 1.11.3-49.el7.i686 ... or something along those lines. Right now the problem is that dnf considers the whole string "krb5-server-1.11.3-49.el7.i686" to be a package name while the package name is really "krb5-server". This makes the obsoletes just plain not do anything right now since they don't match any package name. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
