Dnia 31-08-2006, czw o godzinie 19:54 +0200, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz napisał(a): > Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > Dnia 31-08-2006, czw o godzinie 19:28 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe napisaĹ‚(a): > > > On Thursday 31 August 2006 17:26, havner wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:10:50PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > > > %package headers > > > > > Provides: kernel-i2c-devel > > > > > Obsoletes: kernel-i2c-devel > > > > > > > > If that worked as it should you wouldn't have conflicts but proper > > > > obsoletes. > > > what is "should work" ? ;) > > > > > > if each kernel-headers provides kernel-i2c-devel and other one obsoletes, > > > surely it would be marked as removed. > > > > > > for the resolution i suggest removing 'Provides: kernel-i2c-devel' so > > > other > > > package Obsolete: wouldn't mark (all!) kernel-headers packages > > > > Isn't it possible to write Obsoletes: kernel-i2c-devel < 2.6.0? > > 1. The Provides are not versioned.
But could be and the obsoleted package certainly was versioned. > 2. What about kernel24-headers? No longer needed on builders? Dunno, it probably provides kernel24-i2c-devel? If not, it won't work anyway (mutual obsoletes/provides with kernel 2.6). -- Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLD Linux _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
