On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 23:00 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 15. 04. 21 22:21, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>
> In this case, presumably only `rxvt` fits the bill here as it is
> causing a conflict, so... perhaps I should add it to `fedora-
> obsolete-
> packages` for F32, F33, and F34? Or just make `rxvt-unicode` properly
> Provides+Obsoletes `rxvt`?
Doing it form the "replacing" package is preferred if at all possible.
That'll
work as well.
Ah, that explains it, it's an off-by-one error. last release of rxvt is
2.7.10-36 but the Obsoletes in rxvt-unicode is for <= 2.7.10-36, and
that should be 37 or higher because of %{?dist}.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-re...
I bumped the N-V-R and issued updates:
F32
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0632e9328a
F33
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a2f2c29e27
F34
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5a6e035c19
F35
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d67970ea5a
> The next question is what to do with packages that are no
longer
> buildable, or are retired, but are still working. Removing it in
> Fedora
> might be overkill, in which case we probably will need to come up
> with
> our own internal version of fedora-obsolete-packages to remove them.
Yes, unless they cause conflicts, or are very insecure, we don't
generally
remove those from user machines.
Fair enough, I'll plan on writing our own in-house obsolete package
then, if our security folks deem it necessary. Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name