On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 16:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > > If a package's entire function has been subsumed by another package, there's > > > no point in going through an orphan cycle. > > > > There can be different packages providing the same functionality in > > fedora. The criterion is the presence of a maintainer (and passing the > > review). > > Not always. For example, we have obsoletes in perl for modules that moved > into the base perl distribution. There's no reason to go through an orphan > cycle for that. Similarly, if the entirety of gnome-volume-manager is poking > interfaces that no longer exist, there's really no point to orphaning it. But the interfaces do exist, they're just being frobbed by another application. Should someone decide to not have that application (strange, yet possible) they'd have to resort to ivman or some other app like that. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
