On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:44:40 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > Still not true. There are exceptions. Else a few current Fedora > > packages, which conflict explicitly, could not be in the collection. > > Other packages live on happily with bugs filed but no fix for a very > > long time. > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts > > > Exceptions prove the rule. However, in the case of rpm and other > pieces of technology we acknowledge as critical, I think we have to be > exceedingly careful. We must insist that secondary implementations in > fedora avoid conflicts with the primary implementation that the > distribution relies on. Yes. And my quoted paragraph above was no plead for allowing rpm5.org to replace rpm.org in Fedora. It only showed that at the packaging-level it is possible to have explicit conflicts, and some are even between alternative implementations of libraries. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
