Bug 782081

Summary:	rubygem-activesupport2.3 should have versioned virtual provide
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda <bkabrda>
Component:	rubygem-activesupport2.3	Assignee:	Emanuel Rietveld <codehotter>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	codehotter
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-03-07 14:25:05 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-01-16 13:32:10 UTC

Hi,
your rubygem-activesupport2.3 has an unversioned virtual provide rubygem(activesupport), which is the same as of rubygem-activesupport package.

This causes a problem in Rawhide, because if the virtual provide is unversioned, then the package for installation is chosen non-deterministically, so if someone wants to install "rubygem(activesupport)", it may install rubygem-activesupport2.3, which is what we do not want.

Could you version the provide - something like Provides: rubygem(activesupport) = 2.3?

Thank you,
Bohuslav.

Comment 1 Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-16 15:50:16 UTC

Hi, thanks for reporting.

The virtual provide is already versioned. However, I have learned today that yum assumes the virtual provides version cannot be compared and prioritizes packages in a different way. I will rename the virtual provide to rubygem(activesupport2.3).

Comment 2 Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-16 16:08:07 UTC

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=281645

Comment 3 Emanuel Rietveld 2012-01-16 16:08:44 UTC

Sorry, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=293706

Comment 4 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-01-17 08:19:27 UTC

So it seems after all that it may be a bug in yum. I reported it in #782345 and we will see.

Comment 5 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2012-03-07 14:25:05 UTC

Ok, the response was that handling virtual provides is hard and it is not clear if the user wants newer or older (I wonder how that is not clear, as it works that way with normal packages...).
Anyway, since this is no longer an issue, I am closing this bug.