foo vs. foo+

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Sat Jul 21 14:18:02 UTC 2007


On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:41:37 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And packagers should still be very careful not to bring back "Provides:
> foo = %version-%release" for compat-packages and alternatives. It would
> only be a matter of time till the typical %{dist} mass-updates would
> reintroduce problems for the old branches.

Yup. We can easily fix F7 and FC6 rpm but EPEL is another story 
altogether.

 	- Panu -




More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list