file conflicts with previous version

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Seth Vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> 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).

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.