On Tue, 19 May 2009, Chris Adams wrote:
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).
Well, you could make foo-libs only require Foo if it is the 64bit arch.
I think you can do comparisons to %_isa
-sv
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
