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 HronĨok <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.

1. 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