<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20How%20should%20packages%20with%20version%20in%20name%20be%20handled%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cop.wbq3hh14n7mcit%40hodgins.homeip.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="013532.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="013544.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?</H1>
<B>David W. Hodgins</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20How%20should%20packages%20with%20version%20in%20name%20be%20handled%3F&In-Reply-To=%3Cop.wbq3hh14n7mcit%40hodgins.homeip.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?">davidwhodgins at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Mon Mar 26 01:57:07 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="013532.html">[Mageia-dev] freeze push: perl_checker
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="013544.html">[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#13533">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#13533">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#13533">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#13533">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>I've started qa testing upgrading from Mageia 1 to
Cauldron, to ensure going from Mageia 1 to 2 will
go smoothly.
I'm running into a some cases like
<A HREF="https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5103">https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5103</A>
where Mageia 1 has libchamplain-gtk0.8_1
and Cauldron has libchamplain-gtk0.12_0
As the packages contain version numbers in the package name,
urpmi is not treating it as a package update, which results
in messages such as
The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
libchamplain-gtk0.8_1-0.8.3-1.mga1.i586
(due to missing libclutter-gtk-0.10.so.0)
libchamplain0.8_1-0.8.3-1.mga1.i586
(due to missing libclutter-glx-1.0.so.0)
Am I correct in thinking that adding an obsoletes of
libchamplain-gtk0.8_1 to libchamplain-gtk0.12_0 would
get urpmi to remove it without generating the above
message?
If so, should I be opening bug reports for each of these
cases, or should it be left as is, and simply tell the
users to go ahead and answer yes to the prompt?
Regards, Dave Hodgins
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="013532.html">[Mageia-dev] freeze push: perl_checker
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="013544.html">[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#13533">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#13533">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#13533">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#13533">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>