On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Christian Boltz
Hello,
on Montag, 19. September 2011, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le dimanche 18 septembre 2011, à 20:07 +0200, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
obsoletes/provides relation: Obsoletes: foo < %version Provides: foo = %version
I've got a project that may need this. == background == I am working with the next4 team and they have a ext4dev patch that allows a ext4dev module to be compiled. If that module is inserted, then that kernel will take the ext4dev filesystem type to mean the filesystem should be examined to see if it has snapshot support and if so, enable it if explicitly requested to. == My need. To go with the above module, e2fsprogs has to be extended to have the legacy programs mkfs.ext4dev, fsck.ext4dev, etc. handle this new definition of ext4dev (ext4dev is unused since the 2.6.29 kernel I think). That turns out to be trivial because there is remnant code in e2fsprogs to build those with no issues. My issue is in the packaging. I doubt I should submit a patch to update the core e2fsprogs package, so I was thinking of creating a e2fsprogs-ext4dev package. That package would provide all the same executatables and libraries as e2fsprogs (plus a couple), but the ext4dev versions of the exe's would be different. Is that logical? If so, is there an example package/specfile I could look at to see how they are handling the package name, provides, and obsoletes logic? Thanks Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org