Stephan Kulow (coolo@suse.de) wrote:
On 06.11.2012 09:54, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [Nov 06. 2012 06:43]:
It's not a bug, it's a design limitation.
LOL
BTW: zypper doesn't like two packages named rubygem-foo either.
Can you please be more specific here ?
zypper is supporting multiple versions of a package (i.e. the linux kernel) for quite some time and I don't see issues with zypper and the four versions of sblim-sfcb in systemsmanagement:wbem either.
Yeah, if you configure multiversion for kernels in zypp.conf - do you want to change zypp.conf for all gems?
multiversion is not necessarily a requirement here. We are talking about a single OBS project providing the *choice* of multiple versions of a gem. AFAICS, sblim-sfcb in systemsmanagement:wbem is an example where multiversion would *not* be required, because e.g. 1.3.7 would only ever be installed on SP1 machines, and 1.3.11 on SP2 machines. However, in the few ugly cases where multi-version is required, it should be possible to accommodate - rubygemsdeps.rb could generate the following extra Provides: multiversion(rubygem) multiversion(rubygem-foo) multiversion(rubygem-foo-1) multiversion(rubygem-foo-1_2) multiversion(1.9:rubygem-foo) multiversion(1.9:rubygem-foo-1) multiversion(1.9:rubygem-foo-1_2) and then any product-oriented rpm could install the appropriate multiversion policy / policies into /etc/zypp/multiversion.d/ e.g. multiversion = provides:multiversion(1.9:rubygem-foo)' which would allow multiple versions of the foo gem to co-exist simultaneously for a 1.9 ruby install. So I have *still* not heard a convincing reason why we would ever need suffices in the Name: field. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org