On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I've checked the status quo.
Package "reproducer_reversed" starts supplementing package "rpm".
"rpm" is
installed, but "reproducer_reversed" is not.
1. dnf upgarde, no rpm update available: reproducer_reversed is not pulled
in
2. dnf reinstall rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
3. dnf downgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
4. dnf upgrade rpm: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
5. dnf upgrade, rpm update avilable: reproducer_reversed is pulled in
Would this change proposal actually change the observed behavior? In what
way?
Based on Jaroslav's response, I'm afraid the new behavior will be that
"reproducer_reversed" doesn't get pulled in in any of those cases (or
perhaps just in case #2). But let's wait for Jaroslav to provide a
definitive answer.