For some reason, I haven't seen Thierry's message yet, so I'll reply to Abel's reply to it....
On Monday 07 July 2003 14:56, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote: > Thierry Vignaud wrote: > |>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? > | > | they both provides/obsoletes it, so there's no bug there. OK, if RPM is working properly, if you install them both at the same time, it will install both--but if you have one, installing or upgrading the other will uninstall the first. And that is exactly the behavior I'm seeing. Worse, once you have the two installed, if a new 1.2 package comes out without a new 1.3, or vice-versa, upgrading will remove the other; you'll have to wait until new versions of both packages are available to upgrade properly. This is a bit unintuitive, to put it mildly. > And I think the gimp-data-min shouldn't be obsoleted/provided by > gimp1_3, since this is an really old artifact from 1.0-1.2 days. > If gimp-data-min package still exist for now, it won't conflict with > gimp1_3, so there's not much point to provide/obsolete gimp-data-min in > gimp1_3. OK, that would solve the problem just as well, and it's easier. But, is it too late to remove gimp-data-min from gimp1_3 when it was provided by the gimp1_3 package in 9.1 contribs? A quick urpmf --media main-cooker,contrib-cooker --provides "" |grep gimp-data-min shows nothing relying on this; is that a good enough test to be sure it's safe, or do we also have to make sure that non-Mandrake-provided packages (plf, nexedi, whatever) don't need it? [about hackgimp being provided and obsoleted by both] > | we cannot change the past, only the future, so here's the hackgimp > | definition. > > This is true, for gimp 1.2. But for 1.3, I guess we don't need to > provide/obsolete hackgimp again. Again, is it ok to remove hackgimp now when it was already in the 9.1 release of gimp1_3? (The same test as above shows nothing in Cooker requires hackgimp either.) > | it would just be easier if you send me the spec files for my packages OK, done.
