file conflicts with previous version

[Seth Vidal]

On Tue, 19 May 2009, Chris Adams wrote:

> 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).

Well, you could make foo-libs only require Foo if it is the 64bit arch.

I think you can do comparisons to %_isa

-sv