Re: preferred-provider at the image level a.k.a why is all this fso stuff in my non-fso image

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 26-11-08 20:00, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 19:40 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> if fso-foo has
>>
>> Conflicts: foo
>> Replaces: foo
>>
>> but not
>>
>> Provides: foo
>>
>> opkg will always pick fso-foo when it's present in deploy, while you
>> want an image with foo.
>
> Are you sure that your package fso-foo really wants to Conflict: with
> and Replace: foo without also Providing: it?

I'd rather have it only Conflict:, but that places extra burden on the 
fso people.

> Although I don't think
> there is any reason why this is inherently illegitimate, it is certainly
> something of a fringe case and my first suspicion would be that this is
> a packaging bug which is just happening to tickle an opkg bug and/or
> misfeature.  I suspect opkg is taking a slightly harder line on this,
> deciding that lack of Provides: in this case must certainly be a
> packaging error, and proceeding as if that Provides: was present.  It's
> debatable whether this is a desirable thing for it to be doing but,
> irrespective of that, at least a part of the right answer is probably to
> fix the offending packages.

I have literally no clue about opkg internals, sorry.

regards,

Koen