On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:27:08 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 05:21:23PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > Incomplete. Ought to be: > > > > Obsoletes: openmotif <= 2.3.0-0.2.1 > > This is not strictly required, but not doing that could lead to trouble > later when the lesstif sonames are bumped in the future, and considering > that the -devel package will obsolete older openmotif this is not that > problematic, and it will get rid of old fedora openmotif. lesstif-devel: Obsoletes: openmotif-devel <= ... lesstif: Obsoletes: openmotif <= ... Only a properly packaged OpenMotif with a higher version number can bring back "openmotif" and "openmotif-devel" for FC6 and later. > > Obsoletes: openmotif-devel <= 2.3.0-0.2.1 > > > > I like it, FWIW. ;-) > > Once agin I dislike it because there are certainly scenarios for which > it will really bother third party repo openmotif packaging. It has been a Core package. 3rd parties need to choose a version number that is higher than in Core, anyway, and hence would not be affected by the Obsoletes anyway. However, they will see the implicit conflicts unless they re-package their OpenMotif in a non-conflicting way. > Indeed that could be a good idea to have fesco people have a look at that. > I'll implement the versioned obsoletes, but maybe it could deserve a thorough > look at it. Again, to emphasise my concerns: first link in bug #221083, a conflict is bad. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
