Am Donnerstag 02 Oktober 2008 schrieb Toni: > Am Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2008 schrieb Hans-Peter Jansen: > > Hi, > > > > next system, next issues: > > > > file /usr/lib/liboil-0.3.so.0 from install of liboil0-0.3.15-0.pm.1 > > conflicts with file from package liboil-0.3.14-18.1 > > > > # zyp se -s liboil* > > Lese installierte Pakete... > > > > S | Name | Typ | Version | Architektur | > > Repository > > --+---------------------+-------+---------------+-------------+-------- > >---- ------ i | liboil | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1 | i586 > > | openSUSE-11.0-FTP > > > > | liboil-devel | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586 | Packman > > | 11.0 RPMs liboil-devel | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1 | i586 > > | | openSUSE-11.0-FTP liboil-doc | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | > > | i586 > > | > > | | Packman 11.0 RPMs liboil-doc | Paket | 0.3.14-18.1 > > | | | > > | > > | i586 | openSUSE-11.0-FTP liboil0 | Paket | > > | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586 | Packman 11.0 RPMs liboil0-debuginfo > > | | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586 | Packman 11.0 RPMs > > | liboil0-debugsource | Paket | 0.3.15-0.pm.1 | i586 | Packman > > | 11.0 RPMs > > > > # rpm -q --provides -p > > /srv/packman/11.0/i586/liboil0-0.3.15-0.pm.1.i586.rpm liboil = 0.3.12 > > liboil-0.3.so.0 > > liboil0 = 0.3.15-0.pm.1 > > > > liboil0 seem to miss the usual Provides|Obsoletes: liboil lines. > > NO, won't be fixed. > > file a bug against the SuSE package, it is NOT following the SuSE-shared > library policy, they have published now three times a update of the > liboil package without changing it to fullfill their own policy.
Well, sure, they don't follow their own rules, but what do WE do here - hunting red herrings or get real jobs done? Make your choice. > I won't > add everytime a new Provide/Obsolete statement in my package if the SuSE > package is updated. Sorry. They have stated the policy and we try to > follow it... _IMHO_ this argument is mood. You stick one Provide/Obsolete statement into all packages you're going to replace with another name - and be done for the rest of the distros lifetime - thus it's a one time action - isn't it? (probably refined with some distro version conditionals). FWICS, it's a sole matter of differing named packages, not of a naming policy of any kind. > > file /usr/lib/libschroedinger-1.0.so.0 from install of > > libschroedinger0-1.0.5-0.pm.1 conflicts with file from package > > libschroedinger-1_0-0-1.0.0-2.1 > > same here, the SO-name of libschroedinger is 0 so IMHO our package is > correct. ... Yes, you are right, and being the package maintainer, your opinion isn't humble at all (contrary to mine), but I don't ask you to rename the package itself, just cope with the different name of the original you're trying to replace. > see here for more information on the shared library policy: > http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy Those who make the rules are always correct (by definition) even if they don't follow them, but again, what do you want? A politically correct package, where users may have pain or do silly things on trying to workaround the issue, or a seamless transition of packages to packman, if users use your repo? Toni, please rethink your standpoint. It's a minor step for you, but a big win for all users out there. Thanks in advance, Pete _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list [email protected] http://212.112.227.138/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
