On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:56 PM Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 09:41 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
>> Dne 29.6.2018 v 16:45 Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
>> > And -- as I said before -- rpmlib() dependencies and their versions are
>> the wrong approach to what
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 09:41 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 29.6.2018 v 16:45 Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
> > And -- as I said before -- rpmlib() dependencies and their versions are
> the wrong approach to what you are attempting.
>
> Do you have any other idea how to solve this?
>
> > There is no
Dne 29.6.2018 v 16:45 Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
> And -- as I said before -- rpmlib() dependencies and their versions are the
> wrong approach to what you are attempting.
Do you have any other idea how to solve this?
> There is no additional benefit to checking rpmlib() dependencies first, or as
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 26.6.2018 v 15:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>>
>> Nope. From my previous email: "the version in rpmlib() dependencies is sorta
>> backwards to what people generally expect."
>> - but it's the range, not the version that appears
Dne 26.6.2018 v 15:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>
> Nope. From my previous email: "the version in rpmlib() dependencies is sorta
> backwards to what people generally expect."
> - but it's the range, not the version that appears backwards.
>
> This is the way all rpmlib() dependencies have
Dne 27.6.2018 v 19:56 Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
> The core problem is that the depsolver used by mock must be using
> bindings/libraries that implement rich dependencies, as well as metadata
> parsers that can represent rich dependencies.
Mock itself does not have any depsolving library or such
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:15 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>> rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
>> but are processed during the transaction and verified.
>
> 1) So the number in rpmlib(RichDependencies) means what
On 06/26/2018 04:46 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 26.6.2018 v 14:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 06/26/2018 02:15 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
but are processed during the
Dne 26.6.2018 v 14:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 06/26/2018 02:15 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>>> rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
>>> but are processed during the transaction and verified.
>>
>> 1) So the number
On 06/26/2018 02:15 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
but are processed during the transaction and verified.
1) So the number in rpmlib(RichDependencies) means what version of rpm I should
Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
> but are processed during the transaction and verified.
1) So the number in rpmlib(RichDependencies) means what version of rpm I should
have. Right?
2) The version of rpm I need
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:57 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 25.6.2018 v 13:04 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> > rpmlib(RichDependencies) <= 4.12.0-1
>
> But on my F28:
>
> $ LC_ALL=C rpm -q --whatprovides 'rpmlib(RichDependencies)'
> no package provides rpmlib(RichDependencies)
>
rpmlib()
Recently packagers stared using rich deps in Fedora and I (as Mock maintainer)
am hitting more issues like this:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/202
I.e. F28 package redhat-rpm-config has:
Requires: (annobin if gcc)
And when you try to install this by rpm from EL7 you
13 matches
Mail list logo
