Re: Conflicts vs Obsoletes

[Jeff Johnson]

On Nov 15, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:

as what is recommended in case like this.

Yes, I can build dummy packages to try all this, but at the same time I want to make sure I understand expected (not observed) behaviour as well as well

You likely want to build packages and test for careful work.


with missing values that was reported about a month ago.

These 2 values in different packages should Conflict: and don't:

        Conflicts: suspend-scripts < 1.27-2mdv2007.1

and

        Provides: suspend-scripts = 1.27

The issue is with the missing value for Release: in the Provides:
and the comparison behavior isn't correct for Conlficts:.


have odd/unexpected behavior.

I can point you at the line that needs to be changed if you want to fix
the issue. The code looks something like this:

   if (sense == 0) {
       sense = rpmvercmp(aV, bV);
       if (sense == 0 && aR && *aR && bR && *bR)
           sense = rpmvercmp(aR, bR);
   }

and the "... aR && *aR && bR && *bR" is what is b0rken. The fix
is to default missing values to "" and actually call rpmvercmp()
with "" values.



hth

73 de Jeff

There's actually a Conflicts: bug that goes way way way back to rpm-3.0.2 Your examples did not supply {Epoch,Version,Release} at all, and so may well I can send a patch for rpm-4.0.2 if interested. Just too lazy to look atm ...

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature