[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal Round 2

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Tue Jan 16 20:48:04 UTC 2007

>>>>> "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?

Do we need to note under "Optional Functionality" that the Conflicts:
should go away when the package being conflicted with is in the
repository and the oldest possible version in a particular distro
release is new enough not to conflict?  This would get rid of many of
the conflicts that glibc has.

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.

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list