2009/11/21 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com> > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > > > yawn, I'm really tired and about to go to bed now, so I don't feel like > refreshing specifics of #3 as I'm too tired to understand it myself now and > my reproducer didn't seem to reproduce any unsatisfied dependencies.. (which > is probably also why I'm mixing rpmvercmp() with rpmdsCompare() as well;) :p > > but here's the behaviour of conflicts when using either old rpm 4.6.0 > behaviour or my patch: > [r...@proyvind ~]# rpm -Uvh --test > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b1-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b2-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > error: Failed dependencies: > foo <= 1.1 conflicts with b1-1.0-1.noarch > foo = 1.1 conflicts with b2-1.0-1.noarch > > with your patch: > [r...@proyvind ~]# rpm -Uvh --test > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b1-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b2-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > Preparing... ########################################### > [100%] > > provides/conflicts: > [r...@proyvind ~]# rpm -qp --provides > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/a-1.1-1.noarch.rpm > foo = 1.1-2 > a = 1.1-1 > [r...@proyvind ~]# rpm -qp --conflicts > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b1-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > foo <= 1.1 > [r...@proyvind ~]# rpm -qp --conflicts > /home/peroyvind/RPM/RPMS/noarch/b2-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > foo = 1.1 > > So here you'll see for your change that 1) it changes/breaks this certain > behavior 2) behaviour of requires & conflicts is inconsistent. > > > I'm not arguing. There are no reference points, only behaviors. Whatever > behavior you wish to see is the one you should use. > > You might try writing your test cases in CUDF and sending > through a SAT solver. That process is what identified the > Conflicts: problem in RPM originally. > > I'll see if I can clean up my thoughts on the requires (#3) whether the > issue was bogus or not tomorrow, but now I'm gonna get to bed first. :) > > > I think you also need to see whether the original problem with Conflicts: > is > still solved with your patch or not. > It is. :)
> > The real issue is what @rpm.org code does and what Mandriva wants. I > cannot answer in that area beyond diagnosing and suggesting: > 1) fix the packages > 2) supplying a patch > > I diagnosed a problem, attempted a patch, boogered that up per > https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=55810 > and supplied a corrected patch. > > Btw. does my patch look sane? > > > The patch looks overly complicated because the logic uses dependency flags. > > Missing value definitions should not depend on type of comparison. > > Missing value definitions should also not depend on whether > Conflicts: or Requires: is being compared (as I have done), but I see no > other > way to retrofit a fix for the problem(s) that needed to be solved. > > 73 de Jeff > Well, the change could be simplified this way, but sure, it still uses dependency flags.. if((B->Flags[B->i] & (~RPMSENSE_GREATER & RPMSENSE_EQUAL)) && *bR == '\0') { aR = NULL; bR = NULL; } Oh, btw. disregard issue #3 (requires: foo <= 1.1), it was only an issue with the first patch I noticed, but with your patch you'll still have the same issue with requires as was originally reported with conflicts, (ie. a provides foo = 1.1, b requires foo < 1.1-2, a wouldn't satisfy b's dependency) even less common scenario, but possible, and behaviour for conflicts vs requires would also be inconsistent.. -- Regards, Per Øyvind
rpm-4.6.0-rpmvercmp-handle-missing-release.patch
Description: Binary data
