[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal
rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Dec 6 14:17:22 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 05:37 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 11:26 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > I drafted a proposal for when it is ok to use Conflicts: (almost never):
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
> > +1, except one detail:
> > > There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple
> > > packages. Instead of using Conflicts:, try the following:
> > >
> > > * man page name conflicts: Rename the man pages to include a prefix of
> > > the providing package (e.g. foo-check.1.gz vs check.1.gz)
> > IMO, this example is bogus: Man-pages should always be named after what
> > they are trying to document, i.e. section 1 mans must be named after the
> > application.
> > => Documenting /usr/bin/check in a man-page named foo-check.1 because it
> > conflicts with /bin/check's man-page is a no-go.
> > Better, change the man-pages suffix, or change the name of the
> > application and the name of man-page at the same time.
> Perhaps a better example would be a .3 man page such as:
> man3/foo.3.gz vs. man3/bar::foo.3.gz
Much easier, simply append something to the man suffix:
It's the traditional way many *nixes circumvented this problem.
For a real world example in FE cf. Coin2 and Inventor (Both implement
the same API and therefore naturally must conflict).
More information about the Fedora-packaging