[Fedora-packaging] Conflicts Draft Proposal Round 2

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Sun Jan 21 17:29:37 UTC 2007

Ralf Corsepius schrieb:
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 09:53 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 17:03 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 January 2007 21:45, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
>>> I still don't think that the suggested way of handling library name conflicts 
>>> (or more specifically, the ld.so.conf part of it) makes sense.
>>> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-December/msg00060.html
>> OK. Do you have any ideas on how we should handle this? This was the
>> only idea I could come up with, but I can see the flaw in it.
> That's exactly the situation rpath is being designed for.
> /me ducks and hides.

Hehe :)

I'd suggest we put the upstream developers of affected packages into one
small room and leave them there without food until at least one of them
agrees to change the name of the conflicting files.

/me runs

Well, or in a more diplomatic tone:
In case of library name file conflicts the packager should contact
upstream of both affected packages and urge them to find a solution that
gets the problem solved once and for all as that's better for everyone
and solves the problem for all other distributions, too.

I'd suggest we put something like that into the proposal and ignore the
general problem for now. We can work out solutions for individual
problems as we hit them in case upstream is unwilling to cooperate.

BTW, does anybody know what is debian doing in such cases?


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list