On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 13:28 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:58 +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:44:16 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
If the old one is still there then it still obsoletes tracker.
So if I have packages A and B, where B obsoletes A. Now there is a rpm-newer
version of B (B-new) in another repo (updates) which no longer obsoletes A.
So as long as B exists anywhere I can not install A using yum, because
yum still considers the obsolete from B, even though it is no longer relevant
in any way?
When I was working on the obs vs updates code I kept asking about this.
The answer I repeatedly got was that obsoletes trumps updates no matter
what.
Was there a reason given for this? What breaks if it's the other way around?
mainly that an obsoleted package should stay obsoleted.
If an obsoleted package need to stay obsoleted, then it's the job of the
*package* to maintain the obsolete statement, not the depsolver. By
including old packages in the consideration you remove the possibility of
fixing packaging bugs, and cases like this where new software with the
same name comes along. It's not the first time, and probably not the last
one either :)
- Panu -
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
