No matter how often/hard I read the guidelines about renaming/replacing existing packages [1], I am always puzzled by the guideline and the example. The first guideline says:
{{{ Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR }}}
while the following example contains:
{{{ Obsoletes: foo <= 2:1.0-4 }}}
i.e. in the former, there is '<' sign, while in the latter there is '<=' sign. So which one is right? Why they are not aligned?
From my testing, it seems that the '<' is really the proper sign due to %{dist} tag, so could you please adjust the example to reflect this?
Also the "Take %{?dist} into account" could do better job explaining how the comparison works.
Alternatively, wouldn't be actually better to suggest to use obsoletes such as:
{{{ Obsoletes: foo <= $lastKnownEVRIncludingDistTag }}}
e.g.
{{{ Obsoletes: foo <= 2:1.0-4.fc24 }}}
and you could remove all the cruft about bumping release.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Actually, in the context of current guidelines, the last "Obsoletes" line should be:
{{{ Obsoletes: foo <= 2:1.0-3.fc24 }}}
Say we have M-a.b-c replacing N-x.y-z
The two general cases are:
I am replacing something specific that I know existed, and I know provide that in the same way. Then M provides N=x.y-z and obsoletes N<=x.y-z.
I am replacing anything that happened before me with name X, I kind of provide the same thing. Then M provides N=a.b-c and obsoletes N<a.b-c ... where a.b-c don't increase as new versions of M are released.
...the confusion in the policy is that because fedora has N-x.y-z%{dist} then you either need to obsolete N<=x.y-z%{dist} OR be clever and obsolete N<=x.y-z+1 (which is what the example does). It mostly doesn't matter much though IMO, as long as there is a version.
The difference is that your example is nice and concise, capturing everything important. The guidelines is bloated and confusing. I would appreciate if it can be reworded.
And BTW, your "OR be clever and obsolete N<=x.y-z+1" should be in reality "N<x.y-z+1" and that is the part of the problem. There is sometimes used '<' where on other places '<=' and you made the mistake here again.
Replying to [comment:4 vondruch]:
As with all the policy we are open to rewording changes to make them clearer, but we often don't instigate those changes (we generally approved the old versions after all).
Login to comment on this ticket.