[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal Round 2

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jan 16 23:57:39 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?

I think implicit Conflicts should be disallowed.  This is marginally
related to the comment requirement (it isn't as clear to have a comment
hanging out at a random place in the spec file as it is to have it
attached to a Conflicts tag.)  It also lets people know through rpm
metadata that the issue has been looked at.  Both packages should
conflict as that lets both packagers correspond with their upstreams
about the Conflict.  It could be that the old package is the one that
either should or has an upstream willing to, rename its files.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070116/ff671633/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list