On Sep 19, 2008, at 6:50 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:

>
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 5:07 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>
...
>>
>> So, is this a known bug? Is it worth fixing?
>>
>
> Obsoletes: has the same (or at least closely related) issue, a lack  
> of persistence
> checking the dependency after install is performed.
>
> E.g. s/Conflicts/Obsoletes/ in your reproducer.
>
> In the first case, the end-result will have B installed, the 2nd
> case end-result will have both A and B installed.
>
> Persistent dependency assertions, not just while installing a  
> transaction,
> will lead to many new corner cases, and packaging flaws will
> force per-package, not per-transaction, disablers so that
> packaging errors can be handled and the pretense of
> legacy compatibility is preserved.
>
> Dunno "bug", rpm has always behaved this way, perfectly sensible
> for rpm's installer hysterical roots.
>
> Sure can be fixed if there is need.
>

Fixed.

Which brings us to the question:

     Should Obsoletes: be made persistent?

73 de Jeff