Re: conditional require

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/31/22 06:17 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 01. 22 23:51, Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 1/31/22 05:08 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 1/31/22 04:04 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 01. 22 21:58, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
During recent major version update, some files were moved from <package>-doc to <package>, and as a result updates of <package> fail due to a file conflict. Manual update of <package>-doc resolves this, of course.

A simple solution would be to declare that <package>

Required: package-doc >= 6.0.0

but that would force the install of the docs package if it wasn't already there.

Is there a way to declare a dependency only if the other package is present/installed? Would

Obsoletes: package-doc < 6.0.0

be the right thing to do?

The right thing to do is:

   Conflicts: package-doc < 6.0.0

Ok, so that doesn't do what I'd like.  I definitely added the conflict property:

# rpm -q -conflicts kicad-6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm
kicad-doc < 6.0.0

But when I try to upgrade just the kicad package without upgrading the docs package, I still get:

# dnf update kicad-6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm
...
Running transaction test
Error: Transaction test error:
   file /usr/share/doc/kicad/scripts/lib_convert.py from install of kicad-1:6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kicad-doc-1:5.1.12-1.fc35.noarch
   file /usr/share/doc/kicad/scripts/test_kicad_plugin.py from install of kicad-1:6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kicad-doc-1:5.1.12-1.fc35.noarch

So the Conflicts line doesn't actually seem to buy me anything.

I'll try again with the version from Stephen Gallagher (including the epoch) and see if that is any better.
The Conflict flag is now set to:

# rpm -q -conflicts kicad-6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm
kicad-doc < 1:6.0.1-4.fc35

Oh, I did not know the package has an epoch.

It just has an epoch of "1", and that hasn't changed, so I didn't think it was important.  But I guess I was wrong about that. :-(

And the result is:

# dnf update kicad-6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:40:27 ago on Mon 31 Jan 2022 05:06:19 PM EST.
Dependencies resolved.

  Problem: problem with installed package kicad-doc-1:5.1.12-1.fc35.noarch
   - package kicad-1:6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64 conflicts with kicad-doc < 1:6.0.1-4.fc35 provided by kicad-doc-1:5.1.12-1.fc35.noarch
   - cannot install the best update candidate for package kicad-1:5.1.12-1.fc35.x86_64
============================================================================================
  Package          Architecture      Version Repository               Size
============================================================================================
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
  kicad            x86_64            1:6.0.1-4.fc35 @commandline             90 M

Transaction Summary
============================================================================================
Skip  1 Package

When I add the '--best --allowerasing' flags, then I get the desired result:

# dnf update kicad-6.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm --best --allowerasing
Last metadata expiration check: 0:43:04 ago on Mon 31 Jan 2022 05:06:19 PM EST.
Dependencies resolved.
============================================================================================
  Package            Architecture    Version Repository             Size
============================================================================================
Upgrading:
  kicad              x86_64          1:6.0.1-4.fc35 @commandline           90 M
Removing dependent packages:
  kicad-doc          noarch          1:5.1.12-1.fc35 @updates              111 M

So that looks like the best solution.

What you haven't mentioned is if kicad-doc 1:6.0.x still exists but just with fewer files or if it is gone entirely.
If it is gone, you should probably obsolete it.

The doc package still has many files in it.  So, it should not be obsoleted.

Thanks again for all the help.  I think I'm good now.

	Steve
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux