Seth Vidal wrote:
> Just to be clear - you're okay with writing things off as a bug in the
> repo but you're unhappy saying not obsoleteing the older pkg on an
> arch-change is a packaging bug?
Yes, I'm entirely serious.
A package should never have to obsolete an older version of itself.
Seth Vidal wrote:
you would expect foo-1.1.i386 to be installed instead of foo-1.0.x86_64?
First this is not the case we've been talking about. Noarch packages are
always arch compatible to any package they replace/update. There should
never be an obsolete necessary, as for other compatible a
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
read that again? You would expect higher ver i386 to install over x86_64
ON an x86_64 box?
I'd expect that too. There's certainly a reason why the current version is
not available natively, if not, it's a bug in the repo.
Just to
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
> > read that again? You would expect higher ver i386 to install over x86_64
> > ON an x86_64 box?
>
> I'd expect that too. There's certainly a reason why the current version is
> not available natively, if not, it's a bug i
Seth Vidal wrote:
> read that again? You would expect higher ver i386 to install over x86_64
> ON an x86_64 box?
I'd expect that too. There's certainly a reason why the current version is
not available natively, if not, it's a bug in the repo.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing l
2009/6/15 Seth Vidal
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So if you're on x86_64
>>>
>>> and you have foo-1.1.i386 and foo-1.0.x86_64
>>>
>>> and you run:
>>>
>>> yum install foo
>>>
>>> you would expect foo-1.1.i386 to be installed instead of foo-1.0.x86_
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
So if you're on x86_64
and you have foo-1.1.i386 and foo-1.0.x86_64
and you run:
yum install foo
you would expect foo-1.1.i386 to be installed instead of foo-1.0.x86_64?
REALLY?
Yes, really, imo, ymmv, and all that.
read tha
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> No.
>
> Putting a note there will just need to be cleaned up when I get to fixing
> that bug.
>
> It's incredibly minor.
I'm confused. What do you want us packagers to do, change our spec
files to obsolete the old arch-specific versions, or wai
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
>>>
>>> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>>>
>>> foo-1.1.noarch
>>> foo-1.0.x86_64
>>> foo-1.0.i386
>>>
>>> Which one do you pick o
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented (and
what else it breaks) is not as obvious as an easy fix of adding an obsoletes
to the pkgs which are changing arch.
The bug is
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented (and
> what else it breaks) is not as obvious as an easy fix of adding an obsoletes
> to the pkgs which are changing arch.
>
> The bug is still open and it will get worked on
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Ben Boeckel wrote:
A special exemption for noarch in arch compares and version
differences? If it's between some arch and noarch, defer to the
version checker.
Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented
(and what else it breaks) is not as ob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about
compare_providers.
>>>
>>> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>>>
>>> foo-1.1.noarch
>>> foo-1.0.x86_64
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
foo-1.1.noarch
foo-1.0.x86_64
foo-1.0.i386
Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?
We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arc
Seth Vidal wrote:
> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
>
> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>
> foo-1.1.noarch
> foo-1.0.x86_64
> foo-1.0.i386
>
> Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?
>
> We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arch as the running system
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about proposing a Guideline that says
> "header files should not be placed in noarch packages. Header files can
> contain architecture specific bits. We currently do not
On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> There is one more thing left: Noarch sub packages should - most likely -
> be reflected in the Packaging and the Package Review Guidelines. I - as
> a RPM developer - really don't have a opinion how the Fedora Guidelines
> should look like and I also
Am 15.06.2009 16:19, schrieb Florian Festi:
Please check your packages[2] whether they can make use of this
feature and add your changed packages to the list[3].
I have reread the list of the candidates for noarch sub packages on your
list.
I wan't to notifiy, that the creation of the noarch
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Florian Festi wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in place,
too?
I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change is
A LOT like a package rename.
I like to disagree. I really see no reason w
Seth Vidal wrote:
Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in
place, too?
I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change
is A LOT like a package rename.
I like to disagree. I really see no reason why an obsolete should be needed
here. Sure th
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
The Noarch Sub Package Feature continues in F12. I just updated the package
lists and statistics on the Feature page[1]. I want to thank all the brave
package maintainers that converted some of their
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> The Noarch Sub Package Feature continues in F12. I just updated the package
> lists and statistics on the Feature page[1]. I want to thank all the brave
> package maintainers that converted some of their sub packages in the short
> time frame
22 matches
Mail list logo
