From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make the git metapackage require the same version of the subpackages. Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:24:49 -0800 Message-ID: <7vprwe4s8e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080106173501.GB9349@spitfire> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: James Bowes X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 06 21:25:30 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JBc3j-0004EC-Q7 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:25:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753866AbYAFUZA (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:25:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753748AbYAFUZA (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:25:00 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:55455 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752692AbYAFUY7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:24:59 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EB88BEA; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:24:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F356C8BE7; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:24:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20080106173501.GB9349@spitfire> (James Bowes's message of "Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:35:02 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: James Bowes writes: > Without explicit version deps in the rpm spec file, 'yum update git' > effectively does nothing. Require explicit versions of the subpackages, so that > they get pulled in on an update. > > Signed-off-by: James Bowes I am asking as an RPM illiterate, not questioning the validity of what your patch does. The approach your patch takes feels like the right way we should have taken from the beginning. Does this supersede the "fix" in 5587cac28be66acf5edc2a4b83b67c8cfffbc5e9 (GIT 1.5.3.1: obsolete git-p4 in RPM spec file)? IOW, if we had Requires for the same version from the beginning, we wouldn't have had the problem when we dropped git-p4 package?