(sending this again; this time with proper cross-posting) Tom "spot" Callaway schrieb: > A new document was added to the Packaging/ hierarchy: Conflicts. > This document is also linked from the Packaging/Guidelines. I'd like to thank all members of the packaging committee for their work and this policy. > [...] > Implicit Conflicts > Keep in mind that implicit conflicts are NEVER acceptable. If your > package conflicts with another package, then you must either resolve the > conflict, or mark it with Conflicts:. /me hopes we sooner or later have a script running somewhere on a server regularly that checks for implicit conflicts and bugs people if it finds any > [...] > Other Uses of Conflicts: > If you find yourself in a situation where you feel that your package has > to conflict with another package (either explicitly or implicitly), but > does not fit the documented accepted cases above, then you need to make > your case to the Fedora Packaging Committee. If they agree, then, and > only then can you use Conflicts: in a Fedora package. [...] Just wondering (and *not* meant as a critique!): Wasn't the "unwritten rule" that the Packaging Committee handles theoretical packaging while FESCo handles practical packaging? Or did I get something wrong? *If* the Packaging Committee handles practical packaging like "Approve Conflicts" I'd suggest we should consider moving "Request for packages with static libs" and maybe "Appoval requests for kmod packages" from FESCo's duty's over to the Packaging Committee. CU thl -- 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
