Re: iproute package split

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:35:00PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:35:49PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 7 Apr 2016 16:07, "Phil Sutter" <psutter(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:55:40PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> wrote: >>>> If you have: >>>> >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Maybe you already thought about this, but I'd add >>>> Recommends: iproute-tc to the main package, and >>> >>> I guess that's merely a hint, right? >>> >> >> At this time dnf installs recommended packages listed at the same time, but >> having it excluded will not fail the install. > > Yes. Basically someone who types 'dnf install iproute' in F24+ will > get both packages, but it is still possible to create an image without > the -tc subpackage. Ah, that's nice. This way users won't have to even know about the package split. >>>> Requires: iproute-tc = %{version}-%{release} to tc subpackage. >>> >>> Why should iproute-tc require itself? Could you please explain the >>> effect this has? >> >> I assume he meant have iproute-tc require the mass matching iproute version >> to ensure they are kept in sync when both are installed. > > Yep, sorry for the typo. OK, that explains it. I have been thinking about this dependency already and suppose it's possible to use tc without the base iproute package. OTOH I guess nobody really cares. :) >>> Obsoletes: %{name}%{isa} < the-new-version-release >> >> Hmm. Shouldn't this be '%{?_isa}' instead? At least that's what >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires >> recommends. Not sure if that is up to date, though. > > In the other part of the thread Panu writes that this doesn't work. Not sure if this still applies: | $ repoquery --repoid=psutter-iproute --whatobsoletes iproute | [...] | iproute-0:4.5.0-3.fc25.x86_64 | iproute-tc-0:4.5.0-3.fc25.x86_64 | $ dnf list obsoletes | Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:11 ago on Thu Apr 7 12:03:20 2016. | Obsoleting Packages | iproute.x86_64 4.5.0-3.fc25 psutter-iproute | iproute.x86_64 4.5.0-1.fc25 @psutter-iproute | iproute-tc.x86_64 4.5.0-2.fc25 rawhide | iproute.x86_64 4.5.0-1.fc25 @psutter-iproute | iproute-tc.x86_64 4.5.0-3.fc25 psutter-iproute | iproute.x86_64 4.5.0-1.fc25 @psutter-iproute | $ rpm -qp --obsoletes x86_64/iproute-4.5.0-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm | iproute(x86-64) < 4.5.0-3 | $ rpm -qp --provides x86_64/iproute-4.5.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm | /sbin/ip | config(iproute) = 4.5.0-1.fc25 | iproute = 4.5.0-1.fc25 | iproute(x86-64) = 4.5.0-1.fc25 | $ rpm -q iproute | iproute-4.5.0-1.fc25.x86_64 | $ sudo dnf upgrade iproute | [...] | Installing: | iproute-tc x86_64 4.5.0-3.fc25 psutter-iproute 333 k | replacing iproute.x86_64 4.5.0-1.fc25 | Upgrading: | iproute x86_64 4.5.0-3.fc25 psutter-iproute 394 k This all looks sane to me. The spec-file for 4.5.0-3 contains: | Obsoletes: %{name}%{?_isa} < 4.5.0-3 for both iproute and iproute-tc. Panu?!

Thanks, Phil