http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515005 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515005#c24 --- Comment #24 from Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@novell.com> 2009-12-10 10:06:27 UTC --- Again your point of view: Every issue is openSUSE's fault. Even issues caused by hardware crap are openSUSE's fault (bug #556819). Great! By the way: I may have even looked at those "another report" if you provided an URL to it... Seriously: As already explained in comment #17 it is Packman's fault because the HPLIP packman packages which claim to be made for "Distribution: openSUSE ..." fail to do a perfect replacement of our original openSUSE packages. On the other hand our our openSUSE HPLIP packages also fail to do a perfect replacement of Packman's HPLIP packages because the openSUSE HPLIP packages do not obsolete Packman's hplip-hpcups package simply because in the openSUSE world there is no hplip-hpcups package at all and I cannot know magically which package names whatever third-party package repository may use. Installing the openSUSE 11.2 hplip package does already enforce its exact matching hplip-hpijs package via the following entry in hplip.spec: ----------------------------------------------------------------- # Require the exact matching version-release of the hpijs # sub-package to make sure to have the exact matching version # of libhpip and libhpmud installed. # The exact matching version-release of the sub-package # is available on the same repository where the main-package is .. Requires: %{name}-hpijs = %{version}-%{release} ----------------------------------------------------------------- But even this is no guarantee that the exact matching version-release of hplip-hpijs is only available in the exact same repository wherefrom hplip was installed. On plain RPM level any exact matching version-release of any hplip-hpijs package from any repository satisfies this RPM requirement. For openSUSE 11.3 I will add Obsoletes: hplip-hpcups in the hplip.spec file to mitigate further issues but this is not more than a band-aid workaround. It cannot work on the current plain RPM level that various sets of packages for the same functionality from various package repositories can do a perfect replacement of each other because the precondition is that each package maintainer for each package repository would have to have the full overall knowledge about all the various sets of packages in all the various package repositories to provide sufficient RPM requirements and obsoloetes for all possible cases in each of the spec files. As mentioned in comment #23 it seems the root cause of the issue is the the package and repository management software which seems to mix up particular packages which belong to the same functionality but come from different repositories. But I have no idea how a package and repository management software could currently avoid such a mix-up because to avoid this, the package and repository management software would have to know which set of packages belong to the same functionality. Here the package and repository management software would have to know that for the openSUSE repository the packages hplip and hplip-hpijs belong to the HPLIP functionality but for the Packman repository the packages hplip and hplip-hpcups belong to the HPLIP functionality. Therefore currently - as far as I see - it is up to the user to avoid such a package mix-up from different repositories. To avoid such a package mix-up from different repositories by the package and repository management software it seems to be missing (according to my knowledge about RPM) that one can define in the RPM spec file which packages belong to the same functionality or more generally which set of packages should be considered to belong to each other. (Plain RPM "Requires" is not sufficient, see above.) Then the package and repository management software could avoid that within such a set of related packages a package becomes replaced with a "foreign" package from a different repository. The package and repository management software may not strictly forbid such kind of package mix-up but it could at least show a warning message to the user so that such kind of mix-up does at least no longer happen "silently". As far as I see it is not mandatory that such package sets must have the same name in each of the various repositories. Assume in the openSUSE repository the set is called "HPLIP" and contains the packages "hplip" and "hplip-hpijs" but in Packman the set is called "HP Linux Imaging Printing" and contains the packages "hplip" and "hplip-cups". The same package name "hplip" in both sets should be sufficient to indicate for the package and repository management software that both sets are about the same kind of functionality. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.