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 #34 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-15 23:36:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #33) > 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 I already explained this to Adam. See comments 6 and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_—_renaming_or_splitting_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