foo vs. foo+

[Panu Matilainen]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:33:06PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Florian La Roche wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:50:35PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>>> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:15:19AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>>>>> Ok so far, but foo+ also needs a "Provides: foo", and I wonder if is
>>>>>>   Provides: foo
>>>>>>   Conflicts: foo
>>>>>> really is a good idea. And can/should we use versioned Provides:
>>>>>> here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless I am wrong, yum (rpm) won't care about versioned Provides:, and
>>>>> replace foo+ with foo (I had such issues with libnet10/libnet).
>
> No, that's a different bug probably. If one of the virtual provides
> was a real entity then you trigger another rpm bug that was tagged a
> feature (check bugzilla for concurrent python of some sound libs from
> ccrma for details, I don't have the bz# handy): It automatically
> introduces silent Obsoletes ...

FWIW, that particular "feature" is gone in rpm 4.4.2.1.

 	- Panu -