[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts

Toshio Kuratomi toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Fri Mar 4 21:13:49 UTC 2005

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michael Schwendt (bugs.michael at gmx.net) said: 
> > As you can imagine, it could get ugly to relocate files like this and
> > still make sure, API users still find them. gpgme03's only API/ABI user
> > left is sylpheed-claws, which might catch up with main sylpheed GPGME 1.0
> > support soon. And then old gpgme03 can go for good.
> The feature enhanced development version only supports the old
> library? That's funny.
Mea culpa.  Sylpheed was in Core and I wanted gpgme-1.0 in Core so I patched
it to use the newer gpgme and it was accepted upstream.  Now sylpheed's out
and we still don't have gpgme-1.0 in Core.  (kmail uses it...)

> Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of having both in extras is;
> I would think just the main sylpheed package is enough.
claws and sylpeed are a little further apart than branches, a bit closer
than an actual fork.  Someone might find it worthwhile to package each one
separately.  Right now, I don't think anyone's picked up the main sylpheed.
If someone does, I think the right thing to do is rename files in
sylpheed-claws to not conflict.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list