Dear developers, ==About== Most of you have probably already ran into problems with binary-incompatible YCP modules after updating to newer yast2-core. It happens when new core is changed internally and it's caused by wrong RPM dependencies in yast2-* packages. ==Solution in yast2.rpm== Only yast2.rpm contained Requires: yast2-core but even that definition hadn't been enough. By now, yast2.spec.in contains: Requires: yast2-core >= %(echo `rpm -q --queryformat '%{VERSION}' yast2-core`) (suggested by Coolo) ==Solution for All YaST RPMs== Nowadays, all (?) YaST packages require yast2.rpm but only some of them define a version they rely on. To fix the problem with binary-incompatibility, we could adjust all YaST RPMs to either Require the last yast2-core.rpm (or Conflict older than the current one) or Require the last yast2.rpm Hard to say what is better: /sbin/yast2 is owned by yast2-rpm (how we usually start a YaST module) /usr/lib/YaST2/bin/y2base is owned by yast2-core Side note: This does not affect YaST RPMs that don't contain any YCP modules (YCP scripts are compiled on the fly -- no binary incompatibility). ==Conclusion== I'd vote for requiring the last (and newer) yast2.rpm bu I'd like to hear from you what do *you* think of that. Please, let me know. Thx && Bye Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, YaST Developer (xn--luk-gla45d) ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o., Lihovarska 1060/12, Praha 9, Czech Republic