https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.mich...@gmx.net> --- Versioned Provides do not imply that you must use '>='. It would be perfectly acceptable to only use '=' in dependencies. $ rpm -q --provides audacious-libs|grep api audacious(plugin-api) = 40 audacious(plugin-api) = 41 audacious(plugin-api) = 42 audacious(plugin-api) = 43 audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) = 40 audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) = 41 audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) = 42 audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) = 43 $ repoquery --whatrequires 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64)'|wc -l 19 All require the latest API version 43: $ repoquery --whatrequires 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) == 43'|wc -l 19 Versioned capabilities, however, allow for versioned queries with "rpm", repoquery and other package tools (if not considering Requires, Obsoletes, Conflicts and BuildRequires): Does anything in the repos support a newer plugin API already? For example, the next development release in alternative packages? $ repoquery --whatprovides 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) > 43'|wc -l 0 Apparently not. Does anything in the repos support an older plugin API? For example, a compat package? $ repoquery --whatprovides 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) < 40'|wc -l 0 Apparently not. Assume we need to drop support for API 41 and older, does anything in the repo require any old Plugin API? $ repoquery --whatrequires 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) <= 41' |wc -l 0 Apparent not. Assume the next release drops support for API older than 50, does anything in the repo still require any older API? $ repoquery --whatrequires 'audacious(plugin-api)(x86-64) < 50'|wc -l 19 All, but 3rd party repos not included in the query. [...] I don't claim the "Provides: qore-module-api-0.18" is not sufficient for what it is being used so far -- an exact dependency on that thing. There are 14 such Provides in the package already. There is a version in them, but in the wrong place. That's unusual and inconvenient. What to do about it also depends on 3rd party packages that already use these strict dependencies and how many shall be included in the package collection. In that case, proper Obsoletes tags would need to be added anyway. There could also be a transition to versioned Provides only for new API versions, while the old ones would be kept as long as they will still be supported. [...] Any comment on fedora-review licensecheck.txt and rpmlint.txt? Plus: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
