Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:41 +0100 Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> wrote:
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@suse.de> wrote:
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies.
For those in a hurry, start watching from 6'52".
Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not.
I don't follow; please could you explain this in more detail?
OK, probably I am not fully clear. I wanna to say something like it will work in future, but we need to solve it now.
Oh OK :)
I think version with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict.
Agreed. Using "Conflicts:" is a kind of evil workaround.
Yes, it also have drawbacks, so we need to decide if current problem is bigger then problems from conflicts or not, so we live with current problems until new rpm will be released.
I agree. My hunch is that introducing Conflicts is better than leaving the status quo, but I'm not 100% sure. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org