On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:38:21PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Florian La Roche wrote: > > >On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:06:45PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> > >>Personally I never ever liked the obsoletes on provides behavior, but this > >>has been in rpm since 2001 according to hg changelogs... I don't think > >>such a dramatic behavior change is acceptable for a dot-dot-dot-dot > >>maintenance release. > >> > >>I would like this changed in future major version though, as the current > >>behavior makes life miserable in some packaging scenarios. > > > >Hello Panu, > > > >this has now been deployed for a really long time, so I don't think we > >should revert this again. > > Flip-flopping is bad, agreed... so if this is to be reverted, such a > decision is not to be taken lightly. I just personally think the current > behavior is, well, nasty. > > >While I see many packages where the obsoletes > >lines match too many other packages, I am not sure if you have an > >example where this is makes "life real miserable". ?? > > > >IMNSHO we should rather keep checking repo dependencies before new > >packages are pushed out than changing the obsoletes behaviour to the > >old minimal behaviour. > > The problems tend to revolve around compat packages mostly. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=130352 lists several > examples of the behavior causing headaches, and I remember seeing heated > discussion over this "feature" or "bug" (depends on one's POV :) over the > years on various mailing lists.
Hello Panu, I don't think https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=130352#c11 is actually happening in rpm and the overall bug report looks pretty unclear to me. regards, Florian La Roche _______________________________________________ Rpm-maint mailing list [email protected] https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
