On Sunday 06 July 2003 11:13, Thierry Vignaud wrote: > Andi Payn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As I mentioned in my last email, there are problems in at least > > these three pairs of packages that prevent the old and new versions > > from coexisting, even though this wasn't true with recent versions: > > libsigc++1.0-devel and libsigc++1.2-devel; libmysql10 and > > libmysql12; and gimp and gimp1_3. > > i've no problem in having both gimp-1.2 and gimp1_3-1.3 installed at > the same moment
Do you have the latest versions of gimp, gimp1_3, and rpm? I retested by taking a stock 9.1 machine, urpmi'ng enough of cooker to the point where I could install the current versions of gimp and gimp1_3, then upgrading gimp, then upgrading gimp1_3, and it wanted to uninstall gimp. Given that gimp1_3 obsoletes gimp-data-min, and gimp provides gimp-data-min, if rpm -U gimp1_3 doesn't want to uninstall gimp, I think that would be a bug in RPM? > > By the way, gimp-1.2.5 provides hackgimp. I don't think this is > > right, is it? > > of course it is: compatibility with previous distros when we had both > stable gimp-1.0 and development hackgimp-1.1.x which became the new > gimp-1.2.0 But this is better served by having it obsolete hackgimp < 1.2, rather than providing hackgimp. The main difference between the two lies in other packages' requirements. If gimp-1.2 provides hackgimp, then other packages can depend on hackgimp when they mean "gimp >= 1.1". I don't think this is a good thing. For one, it pretty much fixes the definition of "hackgimp" to be "gimp >= 1.1" forever (or at least until 1.4 comes out). For another, it's a bit weird conceptually for "hackgimp" to mean "the old 1.1 development tree" rather than "the current development tree." And of course it means that the "hackgimp" name is no longer available for 1.3, 1.5, 1.9, etc. (although that may not be a problem if the new "gimp1_3"-style names are preferred). > but when do you upload those fixed packages (at least those belonging > to contribs) ? I already uploaded the .spec files, as I explained in the previous message. I realize that the cooker submission instructions say to upload the .src.rpm. However, I was told before that when I'm uploading a large package and the only change from the existing version is the specfile it's better to just upload the specfile. If that's wrong, I can upload the .src.rpm files as well.
