On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:30:05 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > IMO , this is wrong should be: > > > > > > Obsoletes: tesseract < 5.4.1-4 > > > > > > and maybe also : > > > > > > Provides: tesseract = 5.4.1-4 > > > > No, the main package isn't obsolete, > > only < 5.4.1-4 Then same comment as before: if that is how a package split ought to be handled in order to avoid an implicit conflict causing an update transaction check to fail, the packaging guidelines are in need of an update. RPM itself can handle the package split without problems if there's no Conflicts tag set: # rpm -Uvh tesseract-5.4.1-6.fc41.x86_64.rpm tesseract-libs-5.4.1-6.fc41.x86_64.rpm Verifying... ################################# [100%] Preparing... ################################# [100%] Updating / installing... 1:tesseract-libs-5.4.1-6.fc41 ################################# [ 33%] 2:tesseract-5.4.1-6.fc41 ################################# [ 67%] Cleaning up / removing... 3:tesseract-5.4.1-2.fc41 ################################# [100%] # rpm -q --conflicts tesseract-libs # rpm -qR tesseract|grep ^tess tesseract-langpack-eng tesseract-libs(x86-64) = 5.4.1-6.fc41 Perhaps that's insufficient as a test, but RPM doesn't detect a conflict. -- _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
