[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal Round 2
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Jan 16 21:03:44 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 14:48 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> writes:
>
> TC> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
>
> A few comments:
>
> I don't think that we should allow any implicit package conflicts. Do
> we need to make a hard rule that unresolvable conflicts must at least
> be explicit? In other words, should it be a bug when any packages
> conflict without explicitly using Conflicts:? And should the newer
> one conflict with the older one, or should they both be fixed to
> explicitly conflict with each other?
People have been filing bugs against my packages when they
(accidentally) implicitly conflict with other packages in the
repository. Given that it stops yum cold, I don't think we need to state
that this is a bug (it obviously is). :)
> Additionally, do we need to add something to indicate that glibc's
> versioned conflict with glibc-devel should instead be done with a
> versioned requirement in glibc-devel? I guess the general wards
> against Conflicts: cover this case, but a specific note may be of use.
Ehh, this is already against the guidelines (foo-devel needs to have a
versioned requirement for foo) and when that is in place the Conflicts
is totally unnecessary. I can spell it out if people want that.
~spot
More information about the Fedora-packaging
mailing list