On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:22:23 -0400, Digimer wrote: > So the .spec creates four RPMs; "anvil-core", "anvil-striker", > "anvil-node" and "anvil-dr". > > All machines require "anvil-core", plus one (and only one) of the other > three packages. There is no scenario where, for example, 'anvil-node' > and 'anvil-striker' would be installed on the same machine. So if a user > has 'anvil-striker' RPM installed, and they try to install 'anvil-node', > I want that to remove 'anvil-striker'. Similarly, if a machine has > 'striker-node' already installed and the user tries to install > 'anvil-dr', I want 'anvil-node' removed. This is because a single > machine can only play one role at a time. > > So this isn't a version conflict, as seems to be what Conflicts and > Obsoletes are designed to handle, if I understand properly. The description of the packaging scenario is not complete yet. If -striker, -node and -dr are mutually exclusive, why is that? Are there implicit conflicts in the packaged files? Then you cannot avoid Conflicts tags. Or are there runtime conflicts? Then you should look into a solution that would resolve the conflict with a configuration file, which would define the operation mode of the software. So far, the scenario sounds very much as if you want to add Conflicts tags to the subpackages as to achieve that only one of them can be installed. Trying to simulate automatic removal of conflicts through Obsoletes tags is not the right thing to do in your scenario. You would end up with circular Obsoletes, which would confuse depsolvers or lead to random behavior. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
