Michael Schwendt schrieb: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:52:57 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > [Conflicts] >>> Is anyone looking into correcting those? >> I don't think so. The questions also is: Do they need to be fixed? Some >> of of those 46 look valid on a first sight. > Did you know that in 99.9% of the cases it would be possible to replace > them with proper "Requires" or an additional "Obsoletes" in a different > package? No, I never did analysis so I don't know if it's "99,9%" or "99,8%" (or even less). > Explicit Conflicts are the worse opposite of versioned "Requires", As I wrote earlier: Well, we need some conflicts for good reasons now and then. But yes, they should often be avoided. > because > they tell the package resolver what is forbidden, but don't tell it how to > fix it without applying lots of guessing. And if there is no way out, uhm, > that's unclean packaging and not suitable for an add-ons repository. > [...] > Example: > devel/hunky-fonts/hunky-fonts.spec > Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93 > > There's no comment that explains this. > Can we please require packagers > to explain such unusual things in the spec file? Talk to the packaging committee please. That really their business. I'm all for it. > [...] And example for a *afaik* (and Michael, please correct me if I'm wrong) valid conflicts (it was even discusses on fedora-devel quite some time ago iirc): libhugetlbfs/libhugetlbfs.spec Conflicts: kernel < 2.6.16 The package for example works fine in a chroot (vserver anyone?) without a kernel installed, but on normal machines the installed kernels needs at least to be 2.6.16. And the conflicts makes sure that the users has none installed that are older -- that's won't work with a Requires (the user could still have old kernel around and might accidentally boot into it). CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
