Description of problem: When I try installing tex-musixtex-doc with smart package manager, it complains that no package provides tex-musixtex-0.114-3.fc9, even though the package that seems to match that description is right there next to it (in alphabetical order). I scanned the XML metadata for the updates-9-i386 repository, and found that while tex-musixtex has an rpm:provides 'rpm:entry name="tex-musixtex" flags="EQ" epoch="0" ver="0.114" rel="3.fc9"/' (imagine angle brackets instead of single quotes), tex-musixtex-doc rpm:requires 'rpm:entry name="tex-musixtex=0.114-3.fc9"/'. I'm not intimately familiar with the repo metadata format, but perhaps this difference of treating it all as one long name, vs. breaking it up into components, causes smart to consider the require unfulfilled. ...checked with `yum install` instead of smart, and it's affected by this, too. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): tex-musixtex(-doc)-0.114-3.fc9 How reproducible: Attempt to install tex-musixtex-doc while tex-musixtex is available (for a package manager that will handle dependencies) or already installed. Steps to Reproduce: 1. (smart|yum) install tex-musixtex-doc Actual results: tex-musixtex-doc-0.114-3.fc9.noarch from updates-newkey has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: tex-musixtex=0.114-3.fc9 is needed by package tex-musixtex-doc-0.114-3.fc9.noarch (updates-newkey) Error: Missing Dependency: tex-musixtex=0.114-3.fc9 is needed by package tex-musixtex-doc-0.114-3.fc9.noarch (updates-newkey) Expected results: tex-musixtex-doc installed Additional info: This might well not be a problem with tex-musixtex at all, but rather whichever form of createrepo and the like is used in the fedoraproject.org repositories. Could be the smart package manager on my end, too. But I thought I'd start small, with the package directly affected.
Thanks for the report. It was a packaging bug by me. The fix is described in bug 481071#c12 . I committed the fix and built tex-musixtex-0.114-4 . It should hit to repos in a few days. In the meanwhile you can grab the fixed version from koji.
On second thought, refreshing my memory at some of the RPM docs, it might be as simple as putting spaces around the equal sign in "Requires: %{name}=%{version}-%{release}" in the specfile. At least, the examples I saw have spaces around it (and inequality comparisons, too).
OK, I wasn't checking the package review, of course. Looks like I found the problem pretty well, at least! If a bit late.