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
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672246#c7>.

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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



More information about the devel mailing list