Actually, in the context of current guidelines, the last "Obsoletes" line should be:

{{{
Obsoletes: foo <= 2:1.0-3.fc24
}}}

Say we have M-a.b-c replacing N-x.y-z

The two general cases are:

1. I am replacing something specific that I know existed, and I know provide that in the same way. Then M provides N=x.y-z and obsoletes N<=x.y-z.

2. I am replacing anything that happened before me with name X, I kind of provide the same thing. Then M provides N=a.b-c and obsoletes N<a.b-c ... where a.b-c don't increase as new versions of M are released.

...the confusion in the policy is that because fedora has N-x.y-z%{dist} then you either need to obsolete N<=x.y-z%{dist} OR be clever and obsolete N<=x.y-z+1 (which is what the example does). It mostly doesn't matter much though IMO, as long as there is a version.

The difference is that your example is nice and concise, capturing everything important. The guidelines is bloated and confusing. I would appreciate if it can be reworded.

And BTW, your "OR be clever and obsolete N<=x.y-z+1" should be in reality "N<x.y-z+1" and that is the part of the problem. There is sometimes used '<' where on other places '<=' and you made the mistake here again.

Replying to [comment:4 vondruch]:

The difference is that your example is nice and concise, capturing everything important. The guidelines is bloated and confusing. I would appreciate if it can be reworded.

As with all the policy we are open to rewording changes to make them clearer, but we often don't instigate those changes (we generally approved the old versions after all).