On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:52:01AM +0200, Goetz Waschk wrote: > Am Sonntag, 25. August 2002, 23:17:20 Uhr MET, schrieb Guillaume Rousse: > > Le Dimanche 25 Ao�t 2002 23:01, Charles A Edwards a �crit : > > > Could not the mdk and plf version include a conflict for the other? > > > The reason I ask is that with both contrib and plf in my sources Any > > > mplayer rpm be it mdk or plf will be updated by urpmi --auto-select when > > > versions are the same dependent solely on time of build. > > It depends not on time of build, but of release ordering by urpmi. Any Xplf > > release take precedence over Xmdk, juste by virtue of alphabetical order, > > which is quite fine for us as plf releases are full-featured. > > I think he has a point here. If I don't upload the plf package after a > new mdk release in time, he will "downgrade" from a plf to a mdk > package with a higher release number. But this shouldn't be a reason > for adding an artificial conflict between the plf and mdk releases. > Just don't use the automatic upgrade for mplayer* and mencoder*
Solution would be for plf to set an Epoch tag. Then the only time he might get downgraded is if Mandrake has to set one. Which is likely to be pretty rare... -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org If your love has no hope of being welcomed do not voice it; for if it be silent it can endure, a guarded flame, within you. - The Wisdom of the Sands
