[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal
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