[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Heads up: NoArch Sub Packages Feature continues

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Florian Festi wrote:

Seth Vidal wrote:
Other people's noarch subpackages? Shouldn't they have obsoletes in place, too?

I know it's hard to grok but for all intents and purposes a arch change is A LOT like a package rename.

I like to disagree. I really see no reason why an obsolete should be needed here. Sure there is information loss when switching to noarch and back but an obsolete can't fix this.

I thought I had fixed the multilib behavior of yum some time ago especially for such arch changing cases and there should be test cases covering that. Looks like I need to have a look into it again.

It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.

You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'


Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?

We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arch as the running system. And then the arch NEAREST to the running arch.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]