On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've checked the status quo. > > Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is > installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not. > > 1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled > in > 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in > 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in > 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in > 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in > > Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what > way? > Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a definitive answer.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
