On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM Steve Dickson <ste...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Again thanks for the help!!!
>
> On 10/26/2017 09:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > William Moreno wrote:
> >> Provides: libnfsidmap-devel%{_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
> >>
> >> Move this line under
> >>
> >> %package -n libnfsidmap-devel
> >>
> >> And you should get a clean update path
> >
> > As Hedayat Vatankhah pointed out, if the package is called libnfsidmap-
> > devel, it does not actually need to Provide itself. So the
> > Obsoletes/Provides should go away entirely.
> >
> > Obsoletes/Provides are needed if the BINARY package name changes. E.g.,
> if
> > we had:
> > %package libnfsidmap-devel
> > (without the -n), generating a nfs-utils-libnfsidmap-devel subpackage,
> THEN
> > it would make sense to Obsolete and Provide libnfsidmap-devel in that
> > subpackage (NOT in the main package). But since %package -n is used to
> > recreate the same old package name, there is nothing to Obsolete and
> Provide
> > to begin with.
> I follow what you are saying but... when I remove both the Obsolete and
> Provide
> for libnfsidmap-devel (only Provides: libnfsidmap is set in the nfs-utils
> section)
> the upgrade still wants to remove libnfsidmap-devel package instead of
> upgrading it.
>
>
If you have a libnfsidmap subpackage, do NOT include "Provides:
libnfsidmap" on the 'nfs-utils' subpackage. They will get in each others'
way.
I assume that the intent here is to move libnfsidmap from being its own
SRPM to being a subpackage of the nfs-utils package, right? You don't need
to have nfs-utils Provides: or Obsoletes: anything. Just make sure that the
libnfsidmap is sorted higher than the previous standalone version and it
should Just Work.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
