Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600243 --- Comment #33 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-15 23:28:28 EDT --- As soname deps are automatically handled by rpm, I bet most of the packages which currently have manual libjpeg Requires do that because they really need one of the tools. That's also why it's libjpeg-turbo-tools that is Obsoleting libjpeg package, as opposed to libjpeg-turbo having the Obsoletes. Since the libjpeg-turbo-tools package already contains Obsoletes: libjpeg, it'd make sense to add the Provides: libjpeg also to the same libjpeg-turbo-tools package. Right now -tools subpackage has: Obsoletes: libjpeg < 6b-47 To provide a clean upgrade path it should be: Provides: libjpeg = 6b-47 Obsoletes: libjpeg < 6b-47 (In reply to comment #32) > Also provides libjpeg in libjpeg-turbo will violate packaging guideline. Huh, how so? In fact, packaging guidelines [1] suggest to use the following scheme to replace an existing package: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review