So the consensus is to drop the dist tag from the Obsoletes? Rpmlint
wants me to keep the Provides. Will that be a problem?
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:08:37 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:28:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I suggest hardcoding the %{dist} to what it was when the package was
>> > > merged (so I guess it is fc7 here). For the fc6 and fc5 packages it
>> > > is not as clear, but I guess that using fc7 too would be safer.
>> >
>> > Questionable, albeit would serve as an ugly work-around. It would
>> defeat
>> > the purpose of the dist tag, since if you reused the spec for multiple
>> > branches, it would make the fc5 package obsolete an fc7 package.
>>
>> Indeed, that's why I think what to do isn't really clear. 2 points
>> if favor of having fc7 in all the specs is that it is really the
>> 'latest'
>> version shipped in fedora, and it can be the same for all the branches.
>> Using %{dist} will get wrong when it becomes fc8.
>>
>> Maybe a solution could be to skip a release and obsolete that release
>> without dist tag. For example:
>> foo-0-4%{?dist} is the latest version with the subpackage foo-sub.
>> next package is foo-0-6%{?dist} and in this package and above there is
>> Obsolete: foo-sub <= 0-5
>>
>> Maybe another possibility could be to use
>> Obsoletes: ettercap-plugins < 0.7.3-15
>> Would that work?
>
> Yes. It would cover all the minor releases, too, which are > 14%{?dist}:
>
> ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.i386
> ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.ppc
> ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.x86_64
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
--
novus ordo absurdum
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
