Am Mittwoch 07 Mai 2008 schrieb Michael Matz:
Hi,
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Why do you think so? If there was no rename, we have the same scenario:
oS 10.1 : pac 1.1 oS 10.2 : pac 1.3 oS 10.3 : pac 1.4 SLE10 : pac 1.2
pac 1.x will automatically get "Provides: pac = 1.x" by rpmbuild, and nobody is complaining about that.
A good point, indeed. Should be no problem then (IOW versioned requires of 3rdparty would already break and that this doesn't happen proves we can do what is suggested).
OK, we just did a little offlist evaluation of the problem. The problem is very interesting: This was broken in our distribution upgrade algorithm for a very long time and well hidden by the "delete unmaintained packages" feature. Now that this feature is off and I'm actually testing what packages are left, it turned out that our packages (howto) is not written in sync with what our software does. And I got convinced yesterday by the arguments Thorsten uses, that the software is right and the packages wrong. Now we met and Michael's arguments convinced me that rpm/smart/satsolver disagree with libzypp. It's very interesting just how much confusion around this topic exists - And that the documenation is confusing doesn't really help either, but now we'll first see what the status is before I do anything :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org