Olivier Thauvin wrote:
> Le jeudi 12 juin 2008, Colin Guthrie a écrit :
>
>>> I think it's probably the -devel package's fault for not dealing with
>>> it's old name.
>> Sorry, this is probably my fault. I am using --keep by default. --nokeep
>> allowed hte upgrade fine.
>
> And even you were using --keep, it seems there is an urpmi bug here.
>
> Can you find in your log the list of packages added/removed to check what was
> the problem. As I didn't update my x86_64 box yet, I'll be able to reproduce.
>
> Thanks.

There are conflict hacks like this in many postgresql packages, my guess
would be that they are the reason for urpmi being confused (package has
explicit conflicts with an updated version of itself):

Provides:  %{_lib}pq%{major} = %{version}-%{release}
Conflicts: %{_lib}pq%{major} < %{version}
Conflicts: %{_lib}pq%{major} > %{version}

The conflicts should be made cleaner, by conflicting on entities that
only match on the other package, not package's own updates (e.g. the
name of the conflicting package or some provide that only the
conflicting package has).

--
Anssi Hannula