[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Wed Jan 10 23:00:06 UTC 2007

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:53:41 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:

> 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?

It depends on two questions:

Does the distribution release include a conflicting pair of foo and bar?

  If after a fresh install, foo and bar are not installed. Does a
  "yum install foo bar" work? (In your example. is bar <= 1.0?)

Is there an upgrade path for either one?

  That means the conflict must not make an upgrade from a previous dist
  release impossible. As in telling the user that there is a conflict, and
  when the user tries to exclude one of the packages, it is pulled back in
  by the dependency chain and leads to a "WTF?" scenario. E.g. installed
  is foo, and the dist upgrade wants to update foo + install a conflicting
  version of bar, or vice versa.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list