On 2011-02-21, Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org wrote:
RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning any version.
Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm.
Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does
this as opposed to say
Perhaps, should be most useful to post question as this, interesting as they
are, on the rpm mailing list. Just an opinion. Regards
-Original Message-
From: Petr Pisar
Sent: 21/02/2011, 16:43
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: rpm's treatment of unversioned provides
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:51:11PM +, Paul Howarth wrote:
RPM traditionally treats unversioned provides as meaning any version.
Over on perl-devel list, it's been suggested that this is a bug in rpm.
Googling around, I can't find any specific rationale for why rpm does
this as opposed
