rpm's treatment of unversioned provides

pinto.elia at gmail.com pinto.elia at gmail.com
Mon Feb 21 16:25:54 UTC 2011

Perhaps, should be most useful to post question as this, interesting as they are, on the rpm mailing list. Just an opinion. Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: Petr Pisar
Sent:  21/02/2011, 16:43 
To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides

On 2011-02-21, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:
> RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning "any version". 
> Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm.
> Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does 
> this as opposed to say providing version 0. Can anybody enlighten me?
The full story begins on

I'm really interrested why RPM dependecny solver behaves like Paul says
and what it is good for.

-- Petr

devel mailing list
devel at lists.fedoraproject.org

More information about the devel mailing list