So the consensus is to drop the dist tag from the Obsoletes? Rpmlint wants me to keep the Provides. Will that be a problem?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:08:37 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:17:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:28:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
I suggest hardcoding the %{dist} to what it was when the package was merged (so I guess it is fc7 here). For the fc6 and fc5 packages it is not as clear, but I guess that using fc7 too would be safer.
Questionable, albeit would serve as an ugly work-around. It would
defeat
the purpose of the dist tag, since if you reused the spec for multiple branches, it would make the fc5 package obsolete an fc7 package.
Indeed, that's why I think what to do isn't really clear. 2 points if favor of having fc7 in all the specs is that it is really the 'latest' version shipped in fedora, and it can be the same for all the branches. Using %{dist} will get wrong when it becomes fc8.
Maybe a solution could be to skip a release and obsolete that release without dist tag. For example: foo-0-4%{?dist} is the latest version with the subpackage foo-sub. next package is foo-0-6%{?dist} and in this package and above there is Obsolete: foo-sub <= 0-5
Maybe another possibility could be to use Obsoletes: ettercap-plugins < 0.7.3-15 Would that work?
Yes. It would cover all the minor releases, too, which are > 14%{?dist}:
ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.i386 ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.ppc ettercap-plugins - 0.7.3-14.fc5.3.x86_64
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list