On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:33 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 09 March 2007 12:27:11 Chip Coldwell wrote: > > Then I suggested dropping the emacs-nox package. > > > > That met with strenous objections. > > Where? I saw one objection. > > You could also keep the emacs-nox package and just name it emacs-nox. If > you're purposefully setting up a box without X libs and with emacs-nox, you > probably are capable of running emacs-nox instead of 'emacs'. No, bad idea. Too many humans, scripts, environment variables, etc. depend on the 'emacs' name. Here is the summary as I see it: There is nothing wrong with rpmlint, it is properly complaining about two packages which both claim to own the same file, that's a conflict and we don't want conflicts. To get us to a situation where there can be two versions of emacs (a reasonable goal) we have the following choices: * have a package which owns /usr/bin/emacs and install a script to start the preferred version. emacs and emacs-nox both require this package. * use alternatives (yuck!), I don't think it's appropriate for this purpose and its just plain nasty, but it solves the file conflict problem. I think the first solution is preferable, a master package, plus there are many files in emacs which would be shared between X version and the nox version, these can all go in the master package. -- John Dennis <jdennis@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
