On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:33:24 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > >>>Jeff Johnson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Try with rpm -i. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Yeah OK. How about something that would be understood by depsolvers then ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Depsolvers (at least correctly written ones) use Provides:, not Name:, > >>for choosing > >>what packages to install. > >> > >> > > > >We need to support what we do have right now. And neither Yum nor > >"rpm -Uvh" would _not_ upgrade package libfoo to a newer libfoo. > > > > From multiply installed rpm -i? Sure, no application gets that right. No. The scenario is like this: Installed is: libfoo-0.9-3 (which provides libfoo.so.0) Packager releases: libfoo-1.0-1 (which provides libfoo.so.1) Then "rpm -ivh libfoo-1.0-1.i386.rpm" works just fine and installs the new library package in parallel, provided that no file conflicts between libfoo-0.9-3 and libfoo-1.0-1 exist. On the contrary, "rpm -Uvh libfoo-1.0-1.i386.rpm" and "yum -y update" would get rid of the old libfoo, running into broken dependencies if other installed packages still require the libfoo.so.0 soname. > >It's not different from what we've done in fedora.us packages. > >Include parts of the soname version in the package name to make > >multiple library versions coexist nicely, i.e. also during upgrades. > >Package resolvers pick the right package based on automatic > >Provides/Requires. > > > > > > So put sonames into package names if that floats your fedora.us boat. > Sooner or later you > will run into kernel file system imposed limits on package file names. > <shrug> <sigh>
