Once upon a time, Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > On Tue, 19 May 2009, Chris Adams wrote: > >Maybe the gpm-libs package should have had an obsoletes on the last > >version that didn't have the separate gpm-libs package (0:1.20.5-2)? I > >think that would have covered this case (or would that have just caused > >gpm to be removed unless something else requires the base gpm package?). > > That sounds like it would have been a good idea. > file a bug? Well, I don't know the innards of yum; what would it do in this case with such an obsoletes? Specifically, if we had: Foo-1.0.i386 (provides libFoo.so.1) Foo-1.0.x86_64 (provides libFoo.so.1(64bit)) followed by: Foo-1.1.x86_64 Foo-libs-1.1.i386 (provides libFoo.so.1, obsoletes Foo-1.0) Foo-libs-1.1.x86_64 (provides libFoo.so.1(64bit), obsoletes Foo-1.0) What would yum do? I'm guessing the result would be both Foo-libs packages installed and no package Foo installed, which is not the desired outcome. You don't want Foo-libs to require Foo (since that defeats another reason to split off Foo-libs). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
