Hi all!
Currently [1], if a package has
Provides: foo = 1.2
And another package has
Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
The conflict does not trigger, as the releases will be ignored if one of the
compared EVRs does not have it. (mdv bug #55810 [2])
Another similar case is:
A: Provides: foo = 1.2
B: Require
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 18:43 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Currently [1], if a package has
> Provides: foo = 1.2
> And another package has
> Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
>
> The conflict does not trigger, as the releases will be ignored if one of the
> compared EVRs does not have it. (mdv b
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 11:17 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 18:43 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Currently [1], if a package has
> > Provides: foo = 1.2
> > And another package has
> > Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
> >
> > The conflict does not trigger, as the release
James Antill kirjoitti tiistai, 10. elokuuta 2010 18:17:11:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 18:43 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Currently [1], if a package has
> > Provides: foo = 1.2
> > And another package has
> > Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
> >
> > The conflict does not trigger, as the re
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 19:23 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > > One solution that may seem obvious at first is making the comparison
> > > ignore releases only if neither has one. However, it would break a
> > > situation where A: Provides: foo = 1.2-5
> > > B: Requires: foo = 1.2
> > >
> > > So, i
James Antill kirjoitti tiistai, 10. elokuuta 2010 19:45:24:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 19:23 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > > > One solution that may seem obvious at first is making the comparison
> > > > ignore releases only if neither has one. However, it would break a
> > > > situation where A: Pr
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, seth vidal wrote:
A related and interesting question is this:
Why do obsoletes only work on pkg NAMES and conflicts work on pkg
provides?
from lib/depends.c
/* Check provides against conflicts in installed packages. */
while (rpmdsNext(provides) >= 0) {
check
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anssi Hannula wrote:
Hi all!
Currently [1], if a package has
Provides: foo = 1.2
And another package has
Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
The conflict does not trigger, as the releases will be ignored if one of the
compared EVRs does not have it. (mdv bug #55810 [2])
Right, this lo
Panu Matilainen kirjoitti keskiviikko, 11. elokuuta 2010 12:56:05:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Currently [1], if a package has
> > Provides: foo = 1.2
> > And another package has
> > Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
> >
> > The conflict does not trigger, as the releases w
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:54:54AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Yup, obsoletes are quite the oddball. They used to be against provides
> back in the day - it goes back to the implicit obsoletes on provides
> thing, thread starting here:
> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2007-May/0014
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:43:18PM +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Currently [1], if a package has
> Provides: foo = 1.2
> And another package has
> Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
>
> The conflict does not trigger, as the releases will be ignored if one of the
> compared EVRs does not have it. (mdv bug #5
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:42:59PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:43:18PM +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > Currently [1], if a package has
> > Provides: foo = 1.2
> > And another package has
> > Conflicts: foo < 1.2-1
> >
> > The conflict does not trigger, as the relea
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:23:40PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> Having said that, the current behaviour seems to be quite broken.
> Please explain the following:
>
> Provides: foo > 1.2-1
> Requires: foo = 1.2 no match
>
> Provides: foo >= 1.2-1
> Requires: foo = 1.2
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 18:11 +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:23:40PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > Having said that, the current behaviour seems to be quite broken.
> > Please explain the following:
> >
> > Provides: foo > 1.2-1
> > Requires: foo = 1.2
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:10:25PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by explain ... I assume you know why it's
> doing what it's doing, so I guess you are saying "explain why we would
> want it to do that"?
>
> To which I'd say, why would we want it to match on:
>
> Provid
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:10:25PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > ...before rpm even sees it. Does that still change?
>
> Uh, you're confusing me. "Provides: foo > 1.2, Requires foo = 1.2"
> does not match, both with and without
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 19:26 +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:10:25PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by explain ... I assume you know why it's
> > doing what it's doing, so I guess you are saying "explain why we would
> > want it to do that"?
>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:11:56PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> Ok, so after your patch the following is still true:
>
> Provides: foo > 1.2 Requires: foo = 1.2-1 -> no match.
> Provides: foo >= 1.2 Requires: foo = 1.2-1 -> match.
> Provides: foo >= 1.2-1 Requires: foo = 1.2-1 -> match.
> Pr
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:23:40PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Having said that, the current behaviour seems to be quite broken.
Please explain the following:
Provides: foo > 1.2-1
Requires: foo = 1.2 no match
Provides: foo >=
19 matches
Mail list logo
