[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782560

--- Comment #9 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda at redhat.com> 2012-02-16 01:38:31 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Well, the guidelines for obsoleting are pretty clear, so it should really be
> > the way I mentioned in comment2.
> 
> I'm not sure I see where that would be the case.  The guidelines I am reading
> are from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
> and state, in part:
> 
>   Example: foo being renamed to bar, bar is compatible with foo, and the last
> foo package release being foo-1.0-3%{?dist} with Epoch: 2; add to bar (and
> similarly for all subpackages as applicable):
> 
>     Version: 1.0
>     Release: 4%{?dist}
>     Provides: foo = 2:%{version}-%{release}
>     Obsoletes: foo < 2:1.0-4
> 
> Following that, the last ruby-shadow release was 1.4.1-15%{?dist}, with no
> epoch.  I still believe that the proper obsoletes/provides entry is:
> 
>     Obsoletes:  ruby-shadow < 1.4.1-16
>     Provides:   ruby-shadow = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> After looking more, obsoletes for ruby(shadow) are not needed at all, as a
> newer ruby(shadow) provides will already be added as a matter of normal ruby
> packaging process.  That name isn't changing, so the obsoletes is not required.
> 
> The important part that requires Obsoletes/Provides here is ruby-shadow, as
> that is the old package we're replacing.
> 
> Am I missing something?

Hmm, I see your point, but I understand this guideline differently:
(For the Provides:, we obviously have the same, so let's just talk about the
Obsoletes:)
In the example you mentioned, foo is being replaced by bar, bar's EVR is
2:1.0-4. I understand it the way, that this should come out of the EVR of bar,
not the old foo (that's why the Version and Release tags are written in the
example, I think). But I see your point that you want to obsolete "bumped foo".
Nevertheless, I still think that my solution is better according to common
sense, because if ruby-shadow of version 1.5 would be packaged, than it
wouldn't be obsoleted, but still would be of no use, as the provides of
ruby-shadow the rubygem is higher.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.