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 op
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 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 vers
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?
Paul.
--
d
