On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 20:59 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 13:39 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 20:38 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 13:27 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > > > and at that point wouldn't the package be obsoleting itself b/c of the > > > > version confusion? > > > > > > Yes. But as I said above, always "=". Not "<=" or anything else. > > > > then you'll only catch that specific version - I can see that becoming > > sticky once you have to limp them along for multiple releases. > > Multiple releases, yes, but not forever. If I understand "sticky" > correctly in this context, that was also noted in my initial post. The > question was whether the burden would be manageable and tolerable. To > ease it a bit (but also limiting future options somewhat), dropping > Release from the otherwise versioned Obsoletes would be possible in most > cases. Yah - I was just explaining I thought it would get 'sticky' -sv -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
