On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > >> All guidelines mandate the use of </<= Obsoletes, but unfortunately we >> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. >> >> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) >> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new >> package. > > Good luck with trying to get some packagers to fix such issues! > I appreciate the effort as I've reported similar things many times before, > but some packagers just don't respond in bugzilla or overwrite changes > applied to git after waiting months for a reply. Isn't this is a guidelines, so if packager ignores them - he should be punished? > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- -Igor Gnatenko -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
