Conflicts policy (Was: Re: Goodbye, Fedora)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:18:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> That reminds me: When will the conflicts policy/guidelines ever get 
> finished and made effective by the Packaging Committee? I think it was 
> voted and accepted (not sure), but it's still in the drafts section:
> 
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts

* No package for %{dist} must conflict with any other package for the
same %{dist} (multi-lib issues left aside!). Neither implicitly nor
explicitly.

This is a policy FESCo could decide on without having to wait for the
Packaging Comittee. There is no technical knowlegde needed to decide on
that. Does FESCo like surprises during full installations or when future
updates pull in a conflicting dep-chain?

* Exceptions?

Perhaps "lazy packaging" in compat*-devel packages as mentioned in above
document? Though, it should be possible to relocate header files and
modify foo-config scripts appropriately.

Packages with a completely disjunct target group? E.g. "qstat" vs. "torque"
in Fedora Extras. Still, with the background of torque, it would be
justified if the qstat package (upstream!) renamed its files in order
to resolve that conflict.