On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:03 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@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.