bugs.michael at gmx.net
Fri Mar 4 20:18:53 UTC 2005
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:29:45 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > What is the official policy about packages in Fedora Extras which
> > marked as conflicting with eachother?
> Conflicting packages are bad, period. Makes writing installers
> messy, as conflicts are done at the last stage of resolution.
> They really should be avoided if at all possible.
> > I think there are other extras which conflict because they provide same
> > or similar functionality, not limited to "leafnode" and "suck",
> > "oidentd" and "pidentd" (core), "proftd" and "vsftpd anonftp" (core).
> Are these real physical conflicts, or merely things that provide
> similar functionality?
Either. To be investigated. I just ran grep on the devel tree in CVS.
proftpd package listing looks like it conflicts physically, also with
gpgme-devel and gpgme03-devel (as well as sylpheed-claws and
sylpheed) are physical conflicts.
$ rpmlsv gpgme-devel
-rwxr-xr-x root root 2755 /usr/bin/gpgme-config
-rw-r--r-- root root 47745 /usr/include/gpgme.h
-rw-r--r-- root root 264428 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pth.a
lrwxrwxrwx root root 22 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pth.so
-rw-r--r-- root root 264290 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pthread.a
lrwxrwxrwx root root 26 /usr/lib/libgpgme-pthread.so
-rw-r--r-- root root 268276 /usr/lib/libgpgme.a
lrwxrwxrwx root root 18 /usr/lib/libgpgme.so
-rw-r--r-- root root 8034 /usr/share/aclocal/gpgme.m4
-rw-r--r-- root root 55012 /usr/share/info/gpgme.info.gz
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.
More information about the Fedora-packaging