Bug 782081 - rubygem-activesupport2.3 should have versioned virtual provide
Summary: rubygem-activesupport2.3 should have versioned virtual provide
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rubygem-activesupport2.3
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Emanuel Rietveld
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-01-16 13:32 UTC by Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda
Modified: 2012-03-07 14:25 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-03-07 14:25:05 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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 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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.