On 2/27/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/27/07, Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org> wrote:
+self.description = "Upgrade a package that removes a provide but another package still does"
Good call. This one may be important, as it might (should?) also cover the case of:
pkgA provides=('foo') pkgB depends=('foo') pkgC provides=('foo') conflicts=('pkgA')
local => pkgA, pkgB pacman -S pkgC (remove pkgA, install pkgC)
unless this is already covered somewhere else... I can look later.
I can throw the above together real quick into a test case and see how it goes.
Well- your test passed with flying colors! (sync896 now). However, I figured this was a false positive, and looking at the debug log confirmed it. So I added sync895 as well, which fails bad now, as it performs the upgrade even though it breaks dependencies. It is exactly as you said above, however, the new package (pkgC) does NOT provide foo, and thus should fail. It doesn't. -Dan