Re: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides
On 2011-02-21, Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org wrote: RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning any version. Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm. Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does this as opposed to say providing version 0. Can anybody enlighten me? The full story begins on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246#c7. I'm really interrested why RPM dependecny solver behaves like Paul says and what it is good for. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
RE: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides
Perhaps, should be most useful to post question as this, interesting as they are, on the rpm mailing list. Just an opinion. Regards -Original Message- From: Petr Pisar Sent: 21/02/2011, 16:43 To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides On 2011-02-21, Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org wrote: RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning any version. Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm. Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does this as opposed to say providing version 0. Can anybody enlighten me? The full story begins on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246#c7. I'm really interrested why RPM dependecny solver behaves like Paul says and what it is good for. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:51:11PM +, Paul Howarth wrote:
RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning any version.
Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm.
Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does
this as opposed to say providing version 0. Can anybody enlighten me?
I think it is for symmetry reasons:
Requires: foo require any version/release of foo
Requires: foo = 1 require version 1 of foo, any release
Requires: foo = 1-1 require version 1 of foo, release 1
Provides: foo provide any version/release of foo
Provides: foo = 1 provide version 1 of foo, any release
Provides: foo = 1-1 provide version 1 of foo, release 1
Also, if it always provides version 0 there would be no way to
tell it to provide all versions. So it's more flexible the
way that it is.
(Yes, Debian is different in that regard: versioned requires
never match unversioned provides for them. But they also don't
support an any release matcher.)
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
