Hello all,
Again thanks for the help!!!
On 10/26/2017 09:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
William Moreno wrote:
> Provides: libnfsidmap-devel%{_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
>
> Move this line under
>
> %package -n libnfsidmap-devel
>
> And you should get a clean update path
As Hedayat Vatankhah pointed out, if the package is called libnfsidmap-
devel, it does not actually need to Provide itself. So the
Obsoletes/Provides should go away entirely.
Obsoletes/Provides are needed if the BINARY package name changes. E.g., if
we had:
%package libnfsidmap-devel
(without the -n), generating a nfs-utils-libnfsidmap-devel subpackage, THEN
it would make sense to Obsolete and Provide libnfsidmap-devel in that
subpackage (NOT in the main package). But since %package -n is used to
recreate the same old package name, there is nothing to Obsolete and Provide
to begin with.
I follow what you are saying but... when I remove both the Obsolete
and Provide
for libnfsidmap-devel (only Provides: libnfsidmap is set in the nfs-utils section)
the upgrade still wants to remove libnfsidmap-devel package instead of upgrading it.
# dnf --best --allowerasing update /tmp/*rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:35:42 ago on Fri 27 Oct 2017 10:04:58 AM EDT.
Dependencies resolved.
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================================================
Upgrading:
libnfsidmap x86_64 1:2.2.1-0.fc28 @commandline 102 k
nfs-utils x86_64 1:2.2.1-0.fc28 @commandline 413 k
nfs-utils-debuginfo x86_64 1:2.2.1-0.fc28 @commandline 986 k
Removing:
libnfsidmap-devel x86_64 0.27-1.fc26 @fedora 3.3 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Upgrade 3 Packages
Remove 1 Package
Total size: 1.5 M
Is this ok [y/N]:
Which is confusing...
Note the '--best --allowerasing' is needed for the libnfsidmap to be upgraded
(which I don't think is a big deal)
tia,
steved.