[Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

[Panu Matilainen]

On 06/26/2018 04:46 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 26.6.2018 v 14:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
>> On 06/26/2018 02:15 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>> Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>>>> rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything,
>>>> but are processed during the transaction and verified.
>>>
>>> 1) So the number in rpmlib(RichDependencies) means what version of rpm I should have. Right?
>>
>> Roughly yes, but beware there are cases where this is not true at all due to backports and sideports messing it all up.
> 
> OK - corner cases and backports aside. But... I am still puzzled.
> 
> $ rpm -qR redhat-rpm-config |grep Rich
> rpmlib(RichDependencies) <= 4.12.0-1
> 
> So any rpm with verision *lower* than 4.12.0 will work? Should be there ">=" ?

Nope. From my previous email: "the version in rpmlib() dependencies is 
sorta backwards to what people generally expect." - but it's the range, 
not the version that appears backwards.

This is the way all rpmlib() dependencies have always been, here's the 
best explanation I've found:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2001-April/msg00283.html

And in fact the rich dependency tracking version is a fine example of 
how the version is not trustworthy: rich dependencies got added in 
4.13.0, not 4.12.0 as the rpmlib() dependency would have you think.

>> Not that you'd want to go telling to upgrade their rpm beyond what their distro provides, that's a recipe for disaster.
> 
> No, I do not want to do that. I just want to provide that user-friendly error.

Ack, good.

	- Panu -

> 
> Miroslav
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-ecosystem mailing list
> Rpm-ecosystem at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem
>