obsoleting in compat packages: is it right?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:07:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> 
> Le vendredi 07 septembre 2007 à 01:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:45:49 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Le vendredi 07 septembre 2007 à 00:36 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > As in the range  1.5.0 <= x < 1.6.0  ?
> > > > I don't think that is possible with "Obsoletes".
> > > > With Requires it is different, since all Requires must be satisfied.
> > > 
> > > No it's not, since rpm is lacking true version range support you only
> > > need package A providing foo = 1.4.0 and package B foo = 1.8.0 to fool
> > > Requires 1.5.0 <= foo < 1.6.0 
> > 
> > Not that notation. But
> > 
> >   Requires: foo >= 1.5.0
> >   Requires: foo < 1.6.0
> > 
> > does not work?
> > It must be
> > 
> >   Requires: foo >= 1.5.0
> >   Conflicts: foo >= 1.6.0
> 
> This blacklists newer foo-providing packages from the system, when what
> you really want is ensure there is a foo in the right range (and do not
> care if there are also older or newer foo provides)

That's sufficient. To have an old foo and new foo in the same
namespace is a corner-case anyway. For a long time, the new foo
would have upgraded the old foo (even wrt virtual provides),
breaking dependencies on older foo.