should clamav-data package supersede clamav-db ?

[Jima]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
>>> Jima wrote :
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to obsolete clamav-db would be 
>>>>> the nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh continue to package, it 
>>>>> might be worth suggesting they do similar for their package ?
>>>>   -1, Flamebait ;-)
> Jima: Can you estimate 'when' it's been discussed before ?

  This specific issue?  I'm not sure it has.  I was referring more to the 
act of starting a thread that pits Fedora against outside repository 
maintainers.

>>> 2) To consider using the clamav-db name instead of clamav-data
> Which name fits the guidelines ?  {-data is currently in extras}

  Guidelines?  Third-party repositories don't have to follow any guidelines 
besides their own (which is both good and bad).

>>> Then also poke the Extras clamav maintainer to have the proper
>>> "Obsoletes: clamav-db <= last-known-V-R" added to the clamav-data
>>> package.
> This will achieve what I though we would want in fedora;, but would also be 
> susceptible to rpmforge releasing a later V or R, and causing a change to the 
> rpmforge packages, wouldn't it ?

  This is the turf war angle I mentioned earlier.

>> I read several complaints on fedora-list about the way clamav is packaged 
>> in Extras, I think that's why a lot of people use the RPMs from other 
>> repos...
> I don't have time at the moment to scan the archives. Can you remember if 
> these seemed like fixable issues while still fitting the fedora packaging 
> guidelines ?

  It seems to me that issues with how a package is designed should be 
brought up via Requests For Enhancement in Bugzilla, not as complaints on 
a mailing list.  I think RFEs have a better chance of being addressed.

      Jima