[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal
Jesse Keating
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Jan 10 21:53:41 UTC 2007
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:35, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I just wanted to remind folks that FESCo would really like for us to
> finish up guidelines for conflicts (and Conflicts:) soon. Not much
> has happened to the draft since it was presented.
>
> The discussion I actually recall revolved around the suggestions in
> the "Conflicting Files" section:
>
> man pages should probably go into different "sections" (like
> Coin2-devel and Inventor-devel) instead of being renamed.
>
> I recall objection to using "alternatives" for conflicting binaries.
>
> There's probably plenty I don't recall, however. We really should try
> to finish this up and present it to the various committees next week.
What about the situation where Foo conflicts with bar <= 1.0, but Foo doesn't
require bar to run? A Requires: bar > 1.0 doesn't work here, can a conflicts
be used in this case? Is this an acceptable situation for the list at the
bottom of the page?
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070110/9ed716f3/attachment.sig>
More information about the Fedora-packaging
mailing list