On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:49:30 +0000 Jon Turney wrote: > On 16/03/2024 00:48, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:39:33 +0900 > > Takashi Yano wrote: > [...] > >> > >> This expected: > >> 1.8.0-1 -> 1.8.0-2 -> 2.0.0-1 > >> libsvtav1(1.8.0-1) -> libsvtav1enc1(1.8.0-2) + libsvtav1dec0(1.8.0-2) > >> -> libsvt1enc1(1.8.0-2) + libsvtav1dec0(2.0.0-2) > >> > >> However, this does not seem to work as I expected. > > What unexpected thing happens? > > I guess you only get one of libsvtav1enc1 or libsvtav1dec0 (since if > these both are marked "obsoletes: libsvtav1", to the dependency solver > that mean that either of can replace libsvtav1, and provides everything > that it provides. > > So maybe the best solution is: > > libsvtav1dec0_OBSOLETES=libsvtav1 > libsvtav1dec0_REQUIRES=libsvtav1enc1 > > So libsvtav1 is replaced by both libsvtav1dec0 and libsvtav1enc1
Looks great! > >> My expectation was that both libsvtav1enc1(1.8.0-2) and > >> libsvtav1dec0(1.8.0-2) > >> are installed for upgrading libsvtav1(1.8.0-1). > >> > >> Instead, I found > >> > >> 1.8.0-2: > >> libsvtav1_CATEGORY="_obsolete" > >> libsvtav1_REQUIRES="libsvtav1enc1 libsvtav1dec0" > >> libsvtav1enc1_CONTENTS="usr/bin/cygSvtAv1Enc-1.dll" > >> libsvtav1dec0_CONTENTS="usr/bin/cygSvtAv1Dec-0.dll" > > Yeah, this should work, but is not longer preferred because you end up > with an empty libsvtav1 hanging around forever... > > >> works as expected. > >> Is it possible to change it like this now? > > I've tweaked the existing dependencies based on my reasoning above. > Please let me know if this still isn't working right. Thanks you very much! Could you please also remove: libsvtav1enc1_OBSOLETES=libsvtav1 because it seems that this conflicts with libsvtav1dec0_OBSOLETES=libsvtav1 ? -- Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
