On 12/10/2014 07:47 PM, Jon Ludlam wrote: >> * then I see couple of provides that do not include scl version, >> >e.g.: ocaml(Ssl_threads) = 9925dd2c278261461f67ee0f74f4149a >> >I guess it means that some non-SCL ocaml package could be satisfied >> >with SCL package, which doesn't feel right. We rather require >> >sclname in all provides somehow >> > > Hmm, this is interesting. The requires/prodides are (almost) all > generated, and they are extremely brittle. The fedora packaging wiki > mentions here (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml) that > OCaml "OCaml does not offer binary compatibility between releases of > the compiler (even between bugfixes)", and that this mechanism > "enforces the same requirements as the OCaml linker itself". I_think_ > the likelihood of a collision between an SCL and non-SCL package is > almost certainly zero, but I should investigate this a bit more. Ok, the hash may help in this case to avoid a false package is installed. But isn't it still possible someone asks for just unversioned provide (e.g. 'ocaml(Text)') and expects non-SCL package to be installed? Honza