-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 18:42 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Other possibility is to modify DNF to not touch such packages. Not
if that would be better. Or is there already some functionality which
would exclude the package from dnf transaction, something like:
# This package won't be installed, but will obsolete other packages
we use in fedora-obsolete-packages?
Since they do not block the upgrades, does it really matter? However, I
agree that DNF removing packages that are not present in upgrade repo
and blocking the upgrade, should be removed automatically.
Dne 03. 06. 20 v 18:23 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Because was bitten by this and there is not clear guideline, I have
> tried to draft something here:
> Dne 03. 05. 18 v 12:10 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> > In libvirt we recently deleted a driver for the legacy Xen
> > toolstack.
> > This was shipped in a libvirt-daemon-driver-xen RPM.
> > I am able to add an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen <
> > 4.3.0"
> > line to the libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl RPM, which gives clean
> > upgrade path for users.
> > If they have the libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo RPM
> > installed
> > though that still breaks the upgrade.
> > How can I get the auto-generated libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl-
> > debuginfo
> > RPM to have an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo <
> > 4.3.0"
> > statement ? It seems impossible, meaning users with debuginfo
> > have a
> > broken upgrade path. An unfortunate consequence of switching to
> > seprate
> > -debuginfo per sub-RPM.
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> List Guidelines:
> List Archives:
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----