Josef Reidinger ([email protected]) wrote: > 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.
Oh OK :) > > > 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. I agree. My hunch is that introducing Conflicts is better than leaving the status quo, but I'm not 100% sure. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
