On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:58:08PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 08:25:03PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 2) add a this two lines to the new sub-pacakge:
> > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Obsoletes: mail-notification < 3.0-4
I just stumbled on another occasion about an rpmlint "error" which
would hit this idiom just the same:
E: ... obsolete-not-provided
I think this qualifies in general at the very most as a warning. Some
Obsoletes: like in this case are not implying that this package
provides the required functionality.
> > (see attached patch for the full context). This way yum will install the
> > new subpackage because it obsoletes the old main-package *and* yum will
> > install the new main-package because it's a dep of the new subpackage.
>
> > This is somewhat hackish, but it's probably the most comfortable way for
> > the user.
>
> Sounds sane enough. I would add a comment above the "hack" to identify
> which upgrade paths are affected (e.g. all FC <= 5), so when FC5 get's
> dropped from FL one day (in 18 months with FC9?) one can remove it
> again.
>
> I think this is not really a hack, perhaps even the most elegant
> solution for such transparent splits. Maybe worth globally documenting
> somewhere in the wiki perhaps even the packaging guide?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgppc4Izbo7pP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
