Yes it is correct. Supplements that are not installed during the first install, cannot be installed anymore with enabled autodetection. There is no way to calculate it correctly without storing all provides at the time of installation for each package.
Jaroslav
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
I've checked the status quo.
Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm". "rpm" is installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
- dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not
pulled in 2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in 3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in 4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in 5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what way?
Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that "reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a definitive answer.
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure