On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:07:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le vendredi 07 septembre 2007 à 01:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit : > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:45:49 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > > > > > Le vendredi 07 septembre 2007 à 00:36 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit : > > > > > > > As in the range 1.5.0 <= x < 1.6.0 ? > > > > I don't think that is possible with "Obsoletes". > > > > With Requires it is different, since all Requires must be satisfied. > > > > > > No it's not, since rpm is lacking true version range support you only > > > need package A providing foo = 1.4.0 and package B foo = 1.8.0 to fool > > > Requires 1.5.0 <= foo < 1.6.0 > > > > Not that notation. But > > > > Requires: foo >= 1.5.0 > > Requires: foo < 1.6.0 > > > > does not work? > > It must be > > > > Requires: foo >= 1.5.0 > > Conflicts: foo >= 1.6.0 > > This blacklists newer foo-providing packages from the system, when what > you really want is ensure there is a foo in the right range (and do not > care if there are also older or newer foo provides) That's sufficient. To have an old foo and new foo in the same namespace is a corner-case anyway. For a long time, the new foo would have upgraded the old foo (even wrt virtual provides), breaking dependencies on older foo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
