2009/11/20 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com> > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > > Attached is a patch that should fix > > > > https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=55810 > > > > Tested by running > > rpm -Va --nofiles > > on a 2010.RC2 VM. > > > > WORKSFORME > > > > Note that this patch is for @rpm.org code. The > > identical issue was fixed last January @rpm5.org AFAIK. > > > > hth > > Attached is a better version of the patch, that captures the > Conflicts: behavior without changing any Requires: behavior > > This command was run on Mandriva 2010 RC2: > > [...@localhost lib]$ rpm -Va --nofiles > Unsatisfied dependencies for acpid-2:1.0.10-1mnb2.i586: > suspend-scripts < 1.27-2mdv2007.1 conflicts with > acpid-2:1.0.10-1mnb2.i586 > Unsatisfied dependencies for pm-utils-1.2.5-4mdv2010.0.i586: > suspend-scripts < 1.27-2mdv2007.1 conflicts with > acpid-2:1.0.10-1mnb2.i586 > [...@localhost lib]$ > > hth > > 73 de Jeff > > This breaks Conflicts: foo <= 1.1, Conflicts: foo = 1.1 and Requires: foo <= 1.1.. Hm, what about replacing: if (((rpmdsTagN(A) == RPMTAG_REQUIRENAME) || (rpmdsTagN(B) == RPMTAG_REQUIRENAME)) && (*aR == '\0' || *bR == '\0')) { aR = NULL; bR = NULL; } with: if(((B->Flags[B->i] & (~(RPMSENSE_LESS | RPMSENSE_GREATER)) & RPMSENSE_EQUAL) || ((B->Flags[B->i] & RPMSENSE_LESS) && (B->Flags[B->i] & RPMSENSE_EQUAL))) && *bR == '\0') { aR = NULL; bR = NULL; } ?
Ie. this would give us consistent behaviour for both requires & conflicts, while also giving same behaviour with Requires: foo = 1.1 and Requires: foo <= 1.1 as earlier. This "should" solve the issues reported and those only without changing behaviour otherwise..(?) WDYT? -- Regards, Per Øyvind
rpm-4.6.0-rpmvercmp-handle-missing-release.patch
Description: Binary data
