Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246 --- Comment #9 from Paul Howarth <p...@city-fan.org> 2011-02-16 11:02:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > Really? Nasty RPM. I thought unversioned Provides never satisfied versioned > Requires. Is it a feature, or should I report it as a bug to rpm? This has always been the case, and it's why rpmlint will complain if there is both a versioned and an unversioned provide for something in a package. It's not always possible to determine the version of something, which is why it's not a bug or even an rpmlint issue for an automatically generated provide to be unversioned normally. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
