On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:56:36 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Friday 28 September 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:36:56 +0000 (UTC), Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Ville Skyttä writes: > > > > When the installed set of packages is not broken, i.e. the latest > > pm-utils requires the installed radeontool/vbetool pkgs without broken > > deps, why does Smart even look at the older pm-utils pkg? > > I can see Obsoletes making it hard to decide what's older. Sure, pm-utils in > F7 is older than the one in F7 updates if you only look at the pm-utils EVRs, > but the troublemaker unversioned Obsoletes on radeontool and vbetool in the > F7 pm-utils also make it newer than radeontool and vbetool in F7 updates and > the mess begins. I suppose if Smart wouldn't consider updating something for > which it needs to downgrade something unless explicitly told to, we wouldn't > see the problem in this particular case. Or something :) We've been recommending _versioned_ Obsoletes for a very long time. We know that obsoleting packages _non-versioned_ and reintroducing them later can be trouble-some, in particular when the Obsoletes are still seen by the depsolver. I don't argue that pm-utils using non-versioned Obsoletes was a bad decision. But I believe Smart should not consider the old pm-utils at all unless there is a problem with the new pm-utils. It resurrects obsolete Obsoletes :) and becomes confused. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
