Bug 1763

Advisory: 

"New version 0.3.6 is released. Changes since 0.3.5:
- Implement FLAC and ALAC encoding and decoding.
- Update license to LGPL 2.1."

https://abf.rosalinux.ru/build_lists/1016830
https://abf.rosalinux.ru/build_lists/1016831

Please, add to requires new version of library. On my x64 test system the package set up without new library. 

**********************
#urpmi audiofile


    http://abf.rosalinux.ru/downloads/rosa2012.1/container/1016831/x86_64/main/release/audiofile-0.3.6-1-rosa2012.1.x86_64.rpm
устанавливается audiofile-0.3.6-1-rosa2012.1.x86_64.rpm из /var/cache/urpmi/rpms                                   
Подготовка...                    #################################################################################
      1/1: audiofile             #################################################################################
***********************

It's really bad practice to use
Requires: %{libname} = %{EVRD}

Both main program and its library must be updated via regular full system update, not via manual packages installation.

Hm. 
The real case:
1) Auto update disabled (netbook, low-speed mobile internet channel)
2) urpmi audiofile 
3) non working program (old library version set up with k3b)

To what can cause your "bad practice"?

I agree with Vladimir.
It would be strange if subpackages from one SRPM will have different versions in installed OS.

You add full container? It strange that audifile install without new lib - new version present in container too.

(In reply to comment #6)
> You add full container? It strange that audifile install without new lib -
> new version present in container too.
	
If I upgrade the system then everything is fine. But if I install a package, the new version of the library is not installed because the old version is present in the system.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Hm. 
> The real case:
> 1) Auto update disabled (netbook, low-speed mobile internet channel)
> 2) urpmi audiofile 
> 3) non working program (old library version set up with k3b)
> 
> To what can cause your "bad practice"?

More common case:
1) Some library was updated with ABI changes
2) All dependent packages were rebuild
3) Instead of updating whole set of packages user installs only one of them
4) Result: 
Unable to load dynamic library XXX, undefined symbol: YYY
Segmentation fault

While it's not a big deal to avoid this case for packages build from one SRPM, there is no good solution for packages built from different SRPMs. Unless we want to make package maintenance really complicated by adding explicit versioned Requires instead of relying on RPM dependency generator.

I do not advocate a separate installation instead of updates. 
But hard dependencies for packages from one of the sources allow, as far as I understand, to avoid those errors, about which you wrote. 
I would like to ask you as the experienced maintainer - what errors can occur in the wrote hard dependencies in the case of one SRPM?

http://bugs.rosalinux.ru/show_bug.cgi?id=1775

audiofile-0.3.6-1-rosa2012.1
******************* Advisory *********************
New version 0.3.6 is released. Changes since 0.3.5:
- Implement FLAC and ALAC encoding and decoding.
- Update license to LGPL 2.1.
**************************************************
QA Verified