https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c6
Dirk Mueller changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |NEW
CC| |dmueller@suse.com
InfoProvider|maintenance@opensuse.org |
--- Comment #6 from Dirk Mueller 2012-05-29 13:43:14 CEST ---
I agree that this is a problem that needs fixing. Is it correct that there
would be no change in behavior with solver.allowVendorChange set to true?
I'm not sure if adding a new vendor tag to the updateinfo is a good idea - what
if it is not set (packages always have a vendor, for patches it should be an
optional field to be backward compatible)?
what if the patchinfo vendor disagrees with all packages that it conflicts
with?
that would be a nonsense situation then.
A non-code solution would be that packman does not release packages with a
lower %release number than the standard packages, but that they share the same
release numbers (plus a suffix like pm or the like). In the end that is what
they do anyway, so the %release number should be consistent.
Following the discussion on the mailing list, I see no issue with adding a
vendor field to updateinfos, as long as backward compatible behavior is
preserved and the SLE case (where we want to force to our vendor) is still
possible.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.