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=782560 --- Comment #9 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-16 01:38:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Well, the guidelines for obsoleting are pretty clear, so it should really be > > the way I mentioned in comment2. > > I'm not sure I see where that would be the case. The guidelines I am reading > are from > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages > and state, in part: > > Example: foo being renamed to bar, bar is compatible with foo, and the last > foo package release being foo-1.0-3%{?dist} with Epoch: 2; add to bar (and > similarly for all subpackages as applicable): > > Version: 1.0 > Release: 4%{?dist} > Provides: foo = 2:%{version}-%{release} > Obsoletes: foo < 2:1.0-4 > > Following that, the last ruby-shadow release was 1.4.1-15%{?dist}, with no > epoch. I still believe that the proper obsoletes/provides entry is: > > Obsoletes: ruby-shadow < 1.4.1-16 > Provides: ruby-shadow = %{version}-%{release} > > After looking more, obsoletes for ruby(shadow) are not needed at all, as a > newer ruby(shadow) provides will already be added as a matter of normal ruby > packaging process. That name isn't changing, so the obsoletes is not required. > > The important part that requires Obsoletes/Provides here is ruby-shadow, as > that is the old package we're replacing. > > Am I missing something? Hmm, I see your point, but I understand this guideline differently: (For the Provides:, we obviously have the same, so let's just talk about the Obsoletes:) In the example you mentioned, foo is being replaced by bar, bar's EVR is 2:1.0-4. I understand it the way, that this should come out of the EVR of bar, not the old foo (that's why the Version and Release tags are written in the example, I think). But I see your point that you want to obsolete "bumped foo". Nevertheless, I still think that my solution is better according to common sense, because if ruby-shadow of version 1.5 would be packaged, than it wouldn't be obsoleted, but still would be of no use, as the provides of ruby-shadow the rubygem is higher. -- 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