Testing libsatsolver on Fedora

[Seth Vidal]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:41 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>> Right, I meant conflicts between latest versions of packages in
>>> all repositories.
>>
>> We have that too, for the packages that explicitly mark themselves as
>> conflicting.  We don't catch unmarked file conflicts until we've
>> downloaded and attempt to install, and then it's caught by rpm.  Lots of
>> multilib file coloring magic here.
>
> Ok, I thought we have a policy that forbids it. So there is actually a
> good reason why it should be supported by yum.

We have a policy that forbids non-explicit file conflicts, yes.

If you have two pkgs and you know foo owns a file that bar also owns - you 
are obligated to put an explicit conflict in place.

The reason why yum doesn't detect them is b/c the metadata about files 
does not include color and checksum (mainly b/c if we did include that in 
the filelists metadata it would be outrageously large) If the satsolver is 
going to detect those then it will have to be AFTER it downloads all the 
rpms.

Do you see what I mean?

-sv