Josef Reidinger ([email protected]) wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 > Klaus Kaempf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Adam Spiers <[email protected]> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]: > > > > > > This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version > > > requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right > > > now :-/ > > > > A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed > > to support boolean expressions in dependencies. > > > > See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz4GJnFokso
For those in a hurry, start watching from 6'52". > Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not. I don't follow; please could you explain this in more detail? > I think version > with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous > installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and > we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict. Agreed. Using "Conflicts:" is a kind of evil workaround. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
