Comment # 4 on bug 1043348 from Michael Andres

Well, according to the testcase  pattern:minimal_base-conflicts  exists and is
correctly associated with package:patterns-base-minimal_base-conflicts (see
autopattern()=):

> (5675)pattern:minimal_base-conflicts-20170319-7.1.x86_64(openSUSE-20170607-0)
>  PROVIDES (2){
>   autopattern() == patterns-base-minimal_base-conflicts
>   pattern:minimal_base-conflicts == 20170319-7.1
> }
> (6138)pattern:minimal_base-conflicts-20170319-7.1.x86_64(@System)
>  PROVIDES (2){
>   autopattern() == patterns-base-minimal_base-conflicts
>   pattern:minimal_base-conflicts == 20170319-7.1
> }

Looks like the libsolv parser is smart enough, when creating the pattern ;)




Nevertheless 'they' (I don't know who does the patterns- packages) messed up
the patterns:

>   4450  patterns-base-minimal_base-20170319-7.1.x86_64       (99)openSUSE-20170607-0
>                                                              openSUSE
>         nam: patterns-base-minimal_base
>         pro: pattern() = basesystem
>         pro: pattern() = minimal_base

The least 'pattern() = name' is used to create the pattern object:

> (5674)pattern:basesystem-20170319-7.1.x86_64(openSUSE-20170607-0)
>  PROVIDES (2){
>   autopattern() == patterns-base-minimal_base
>   pattern:basesystem == 20170319-7.1
> }

There is no 'pattern:minimal_base' (or '-t pattern minimal_base') because the
parser chooses '=basesystem'. Due to this 'pattern:basesystem' is associated
with package:patterns-base-minimal_base.

(same in package:patterns-base-base 'pattern() = basesystem' and 'pattern() =
base')

You should not use multiple 'pattern() = name' definitions in a patterns-
package.