On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:41 +0100 Adam Spiers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? OK, probably I am not fully clear. I wanna to say something like it will work in future, but we need to solve it now. > > > 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. Yes, it also have drawbacks, so we need to decide if current problem is bigger then problems from conflicts or not, so we live with current problems until new rpm will be released. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
