Heads up: NoArch Sub Packages Feature continues

[Seth Vidal]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Florian Festi wrote:

> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in place, 
>> too?
>> 
>> I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change is 
>> A LOT like a package rename.
>
> I like to disagree. I really see no reason why an obsolete should be needed 
> here. Sure there is information loss when switching to noarch and back but an 
> obsolete can't fix this.
>
> I thought I had fixed the multilib behavior of yum some time ago especially 
> for such arch changing cases and there should be test cases covering that. 
> Looks like I need to have a look into it again.
>

It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.

You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'

foo-1.1.noarch
foo-1.0.x86_64
foo-1.0.i386

Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?

We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arch as the running system. And 
then the arch NEAREST to the running arch.

-sv