[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Jan 10 21:55:04 UTC 2007

On Wednesday 10 January 2007 16:53, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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?

Also, this draft seems to be missing a clear "Problem this is trying to solve" 
statement, which goes a long way to getting people to understand/comment on 

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/20070110/61eab8b3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list