[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.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list